MEMOIRS

OF

THE LIFE,
WRITINGS,
AND
RELIGIOUS CONNEXIONS,
OF

JOHN OWEN, D.D.

(1616-1683)

VICE-CHANCELLOR OF OXFORD, AND DEAN OF CHRIST CHURCH,

DURING THE COMMONWEALTH.
οὗ ὁ ἔpαινος διὰ pασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν·
whose praise is throughout all the churches

BY WILLIAM ORME.
(1787-1830)

London:
PRINTED FOR T. HAMILTON ,
33, PATERNOSTER ROW .
MDCCCXX.
1820
https://archive.org/stream/memoirsoflifewri00orme/memoirsoflifewri00orme_djvu.txt
This is the standard on which other Owen biographies are based.
Formatted, lightly modernized, and annotated (in blue)
by William H. Gross www.onthewing.org Feb 2019




 About the Biographer – William Orme
William Orme (1787–1830) was a Scotch Congregational minister, known
as a biographer of Richard Baxter and other Non-conformist figures.
He was born at Falkirk, Stirlingshire, on 3 February 1787. His parents
moved to Edinburgh, where in 1792 he began his education under a
schoolmaster named Waugh. On 1 July 1800 he was apprenticed for five
years to a wheelwright and turner.
His father died in October 1803. About this time, Orme came under the
influence of James Alexander Haldane, whose preaching at the
Tabernacle in Leith Walk, Edinburgh, had attracted him. In October 1805
he was admitted by Robert Haldane as a student for the ministry at a
seminary under George Cowie. The usual term of study was two years,
but Orme's periods of study, interrupted by a preaching mission in Fife
(1806), amounted to little more than a year in all. On 11 March 1807 he
became pastor of the congregational church at Perth where he was
ordained.
About 1809 he broke with Robert Haldane, in consequence of Haldane's
adoption of Baptist views, and took part in the controversy that arose. He
declined a call to the congregational church at Dundee. He took an active
part in the development of Scotch congregationalism, especially aiding in
the formation of the Congregational Union of Scotland (1813), and in the
establishment of a divinity hall at Glasgow (1814).
On 7 October 1824, he became pastor of the congregational church at
Camberwell Green, Surrey, and soon afterwards was elected foreign
secretary of the London Missionary Society. He died in his prime on 8
May 1830, and was buried on 17 May at Bunhill Fields. His portrait,
engraved by Thomson from a painting by Wildman, was published in the
Evangelical Magazine for January 1830. He was twice married, and left a
widow.
He published, in addition to separate sermons and pamphlets:
‘Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Religious Connections of
John Owen, D.D.,’ etc., 1820.
‘Remarkable Passages in the Life of William Kiffin,’ etc., 1823.
‘Bibliotheca Biblica… List of Books on Sacred Literature, with
Notices, Biographical, Critical,’ etc., Edinburgh, 1824.
‘Memoirs, including… Remains of John Urquhart,’ etc., 1827, 2
 vols.
Posthumous was:
‘Life and Times of Richard Baxter,’ etc., 1830, 2 vols. This was
partly printed at the time of his death; it was edited by Thomas
Russell. It accompanied an edition of Baxter's ‘Practical Works,’
begun by Orme in 1827. The second volume contains a detailed
critique of Baxter's writings.
His two volumes on Richard Baxter were commended by Sir James
Stephen. Andrew Thomson superseded him as a biographer of John
Owen, and Joseph Ivimey for William Kiffin.
_______
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gordon, Alexander
(1895). "Orme, William," in Lee, Sidney. Dictionary of National Biography. 42. London: Smith,
Elder & Co.


 PREFACE.
The following work embraces the personal history, the theological
writings, and the religious connexions of Dr. John Owen. In common
with many others, I had long entertained the highest respect for the
works of this eminent person; and in the perusal of them, had spent some
of the happiest and most profitable hours of my life. The pleasure derived
from his writings led me, a few years ago, merely for my own satisfaction,
to make some inquiry respecting their author. Not finding such an
account as satisfied me, I began to think that a careful examination of his
numerous works, and of the contemporaneous productions of his age,
might enable me to afford a fuller and more correct view of him, than had
yet been given. Thus originated the present volume.
iv PREFACE.
It does not become me to speak of the success which has attended my
investigations, as every reader will now form his own opinion. But I may
be allowed to state that neither personal labour nor expense has been
spared to procure information. And had I been aware, at an early period,
of all the difficulties which have been experienced in prosecuting the task,
it is more than probable it would never have been undertaken. At a
distance from the great depositories of literature — far from the scenes of
Owen’s life and labours, and engaged in a service which has a right to the
chief part of my time and attention, my inquiries were frequently much
retarded and interrupted. I am very far, however, from regretting the
labour in which I have been engaged. Whatever may be its effects on
others, the personal benefit which I have derived from it myself, is an
ample compensation for all the trouble it has cost me.
It is not necessary here to say anything of the sources of information to
which I have been chiefly indebted, as they have been in general carefully
marked. And I have the satisfaction to assure the reader, that every fact
and circumstance in the personal life of Owen, which it was possible to
procure and authenticate, has been fully and faithfully given.
PREFACE. v
Much attention has been paid to the works of Dr. Owen. The difficulty of
even obtaining a complete collection of them, may be estimated from a
remark made by the author himself, that “some of them he had not seen
for nearly twenty years.” As many of them were answers to the books of
others, and were replied to, often by more than one opponent, a vast
number of works had to be procured and examined, which are now
almost entirely unknown. A minute account of all of these will not be
expected within the limits of a volume. It would have been much easier,
indeed, to have extended the criticism, than it was to confine it within the
bounds which it occupies. But it is hoped such an account is in general
given, as will gratify the curiosity and in some measure inform the
judgment of the reader. Quotations are seldom made except when they
contain information respecting the life of the author, or are necessary to
illustrate his opinions.
vi PREFACE.
While I have been careful to state what the real sentiments of Owen were,
and to rescue them from misrepresentation when necessary, I have not
deemed it essential to the faithful discharge of my duty, as his
Biographer, to indiscriminately adopt or defend them. Any difference
which exists, however, will be found of very small importance, and to
more generally respect Owen’s manner of stating his sentiments, than the
sentiments themselves. What the Doctor avowed, the writer of his life
need not be ashamed to profess: —
1
Nullius addictus jurare in verba Magistri.
In noting the religious connexions of Owen, and the state of parties
during his time, I have studied to speak the truth, and to avoid giving
unnecessary offence. I am not anxious to lay claim to exemption from
partiality for the body with which Owen was chiefly connected, but I trust
this has never led me to defend its faults, or to misrepresent its enemies.
Convinced that truth is the only thing of importance to myself or others, I
have used my best endeavours to discover it, and when discovered, I have
fairly told it. It is probable, however, that some mistakes may be detected
in the narrative; but these, it is hoped, will not affect any point of
moment.
PREFACE. vii
The Appendix contains a number of Notes and Documents which could
not be conveniently inserted in the body of the work. As I was uncertain,
during the printing of the first part of the volume, what room could be
afforded for them, they are not referred to at the bottom of the page. But
as they are placed in the regular order in which they illustrate the text,
and as each article has its subject and the page of the text to which it
belongs marked at the head of it, no serious inconvenience will result
from the omission of references.
I have been under various and important obligations to several valuable
literary friends, both in Scotland and in England, by whom the work has
been rendered more complete than it would otherwise have been. To Dr.
Charles Stuart of Dunearn, and Joshua Wilson, Esq. of London, I have
been in particular much indebted for the use of many books and tracts
which I might in vain have sought for many years. For these and other
attentions, they will be pleased to accept my grateful acknowledgments.
viii PREFACE.
2
“And now,” to adopt the words of Isaac Walton, “I am glad that I have
collected these Memoirs, which lay scattered, and contracted them into a
narrower compass; and if I have by the pleasant toil of doing so, either
pleased or profited any man, I have attained what I designed when I first
undertook it. But I seriously wish, both for the reader’s and Dr. Owen’s
sake, that posterity had known his great learning and virtue by a better
pen — by such a pen, as could have made his life as immortal as his
learning and merits ought to be.”

PERTH,
October 15th, 1820.
 Contents

About the Biographer – William Orme

PREFACE.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction — Family of Owen — State of the Puritans — Owen’s Education — State of Oxford
—Owen’s religious convictions — Leaves the University — Takes part with the Parliament — The
Civil War — Owen’s Conversion — Publishes his Display — Progress of Arminianism —
Presentation to the Living of Fordham — Marries his first Wife.
CHAPTER II.
Owen’s connexion with the Presbyterian body — its state at that time — Baxter’s account of its
intolerance — Owen publishes his “Duty of Pastors and People” — His “Two Catechisms” —
Preaches before Parliament — Publication of the Discourse, and his Essay on Church
Government — His views of Uniformity and Toleration — Leaves Fordham.
CHAPTER III.
Owen’s settlement at Coggeshall — View of Independency — The Brownists — Causes which
retarded and promoted the progress of Independency in England — Owen becomes an
Independent — Publishes Eshcol — A Treatise on Redemption — His views on this subject —
Controversy occasioned by it — Publishes two Discourses on the deliverance of Essex —
Remarks on some sentiments contained in them.
CHAPTER IV.
Owen preaches before Parliament on the day after the execution of Charles I. — The
Independents not guilty of putting the King to death — Testimonies on this subject — Remarks
on Owen’s Sermon — Charges against it — Essay on Toleration annexed to it — Doctrine of
Religious Liberty owes its origin to Independents — Writers on this subject — Brownists and
Baptists — Jeremy Taylor — Owen — Vane — Milton — Locke — Cook’s account of the origin of
Toleration among the Independents — A different account of it — Smith and Hume — Neal —
Owen preaches again before Parliament — His first acquaintance with Cromwell — Is persuaded
to accompany him to Ireland.
CHAPTER V.
Owen preaches before Parliament — Joins the army — Character of the array — Arrives in
Ireland—Labours in Dublin — First controversy with Baxter — Character of Baxter — Preaches
before Parliament on his return from Ireland — Measures of the Commonwealth to promote
religion in that country — Owen appointed to accompany Cromwell into Scotland-Preaches in
Berwick and Edinburgh — State of religion in Scotland — Testimony of the English Ministers—
Of Binning — Rutherford — Burnet — Neal—Kirkton — Owen’s return to Coggeshall —
Appointed to the Deanery of Christ Church — Account of this office — Remarks on his
acceptance of it — Strictures of Wilton — Owen preaches before Parliament — Death of Ireton —
Owen preaches his Funeral Sermon — Character of Ireton — Preaches again before Parliament.
CHAPTER VI.
Division of the Memoirs at this period — Owen made Vice-Chancellor — Attends a Meeting in
London, called by Cromwell to promote union — Created D.D. — Elected M.P. for the University
— Cromwell’s Instrument of Government — Debate about the Construction of the Article
 respecting Religious Liberty — Remarks on Neal’s account of it, and the Meeting of Ministers
respecting it — Owen appointed an Ejecting Commissioner and Tryer — Conduct of the Tryers
— Owen delivers Pococke — Baxter’s account of the Tryers — Owen’s measures for securing
Oxford — Correspondence with Thurloe — Attends a Meeting at Whitehall about the Jews —
Preaches at the Opening of a New Parliament — Again on a Fast day — Assists in defeating
Cromwell’s attempt to make himself King — Deprived of the Vice-Chancellorship.
CHAPTER VII.
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 of
insubordination which prevailed in it — Learned men in office during his Vice-Chancellorship —
Independents — Presbyterians — Episcopalians — Persons of note then educated — Writers,
Philosophers, and Statesmen — Dignitaries of the Church — Dissenters — Royal Society then
founded in Oxford — Clarendon’s testimony on the state of learning in it at the Restoration —
Owen’s management of the several parties — Conduct to the Students — Preaching — The
University presents a volume of poetic addresses to Cromwell — Owen’s address — Trick played
by Kinaston at Oxford — Owen’s conduct toward two Quakers — His views of the Lord’s Prayer
misrepresented — Refuses to swear by kissing the book — Wood’s account of his dress and
manners -Extract from Evelyne — Owen addresses the new Chancellor, Richard Cromwell —
Takes leave of the University.
CHAPTER VIII.
Owen publishes his “Divina Justitia” — His work “On the Perseverance of the Saints” — John
Goodwin — The doctrine of perseverance — Kendal — Lamb — Baxter writes on this subject —
Owen requested by the Council of State to answer Biddle’s two Catechisms — Biddle — Progress
of Socinianism — The “Vindiciae Evangelicae” — Never answered— “On the Mortification of
Sin” — Controversy with Hammond about Grotius — Death of Gataker—Selden — Usher.
CHAPTER IX.
The Independents propose to publish a Confession of their faith — Their sentiments on this
subject — Confessions published by them on various occasions — Cromwell consents to their
meeting for this purpose — They assemble at the Savoy — Agree to a declaration of their faith
and Order — 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 the
Declaration — Not much known even among Independents — Death of Cromwell — State of
religion during his Government — His influence on Independency — Tillotson’s account of a fast
in the family of Richard Cromwell — Strictures on that account — Owen publishes his work on
Communion —On Schism — Is answered by Hammond — by Firmin — by Cawdry — Owen’s
Review of Cawdry — Cawdry’s rejoinder — Owen’s defence of himself and Cotton — Publishes
on the Divine Origin of the Scriptures — His considerations on the Polyglot — Walton’s Reply —
His controversy with the Quakers — Richard Cromwell succeeds his Father — Owen preaches
before his first Parliament — Charged with pulling down Richard — Defended from this charge
— Assists in restoring the long Parliament — Preaches before it for the last time — The
Independents entertain fears of their liberty from Monk — Send a deputation to him to Scotland
— His conduct and character —Owen ejected from the Deanery of Christ Church — Remarks on
his political conduct.
CHAPTER X.
Owen retires to Stadham — Effects of the Restoration — Venner’s insurrection — The fifth
monarchy men — Difference between Owen and Clarendon — The Act of Uniformity — Owen
writes on the Magistrates’ power in Religion — His Primer for children — His Theologoumena—
His Criticisms on Fiat Lux — Cane’s Reply — Owen’s Vindication — Difficulty of finding a
 license for it — Interview with Lord Clarendon — Invitation to New England — Sufferings of the
Dissenters — Relieved for a time by the plague and fire of London — Owen writes various Tracts
— Preaches more regularly in London — Publishes a Catechism on the Worship and Discipline
of the Church — Answered by Camfield — Discussions between Baxter and Owen, respecting a
union of Presbyterians and Independents — Failure of the attempt — Owen receives a Legacy —
Publishes on Indwelling Sin — On the 130th Psalm — The first volume of his Exposition of the
Hebrews — Review of the whole work.
CHAPTER XI.
Persecuting conduct of the Congregationalists in New England — Remonstrances of Owen and
his brethren on the subject — Owen publishes on the Trinity — His controversy with Parker —
His Truth and Innocence vindicated — Publications of others on the same side — Marvel and
Parker — Conduct of Parliament toward the Dissenters — Vernon’s attack on Owen — Owen’s
defence — 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 the measures of the Court — Becomes one of the preachers of the Morning Exercise
—Publishes on Evangelical Love — Death of Caryl — Union of Caryl’s and Owen’s Church under
the Doctor — Notices of persons of distinction who were members of the Church — The
Parliament offended with the King’s Indulgence — Notices of distinguished Noblemen whose
friendship Owen enjoyed — His interviews with the King and Duke of York — Work on
Communion attacked by Sherlock — Owen’s vindication — Controversy occasioned by
Sherlock’s book — Owen publishes on the Holy Spirit — Review of all his writings on that
subject — Attacked by Clagett — Publishes on Apostasy — Marries his second wife.
CHAPTER XII.
Owen’s assistants — Ferguson — Shields — Loeffs—Angier—Clarkson — Intercourse between
Owen and Bishop Barlow respecting Bunyan — Owen publishes on Justification — On the
Person of Christ — The Church of Rome no safe Guide — Death of Goodwin — Owen publishes
on Union among Protestants — Controversy with Stillingfleet — Owen’s Vindication of the Non-
conformists — Publications of others on the same side — Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of
Separation — Owen’s Answer — Other Answers — Unfair conduct of Stillingfleet — Owen
publishes on Evangelical Churches — His humble testimony — On Spiritual-mindedness —
Account of the Protestant Religion — Meditations on the Glory of Christ — His declining health
— Last sickness — Letter to Fleetwood — Death—Funeral — Clarkson’s Sermon on the occasion
— Last Will — Sale of his Library — Monument and Inscription — Portraits of Owen — General
view of his character as a Christian — A Minister — A Writer — Conclusion.
APPENDIX
FAMILY OF OWEN — p. 8.
THE SYNOD OF DORT, p. 32.
WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY, — p. 72.
PAMPHLETS ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, — p. 100.
ADVOCATES OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, — p. 106.
ORIGIN OF TOLERATION AMONG INDEPENDENTS, — p. 109.
PREACHING OF THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, — p. 116.
THE EARLY STATE OF INDEPENDENCY IN IRELAND, p. 123.
THE EARLY STATE OF INDEPENDENCY IN SCOTLAND, P 137.
 OWEN’S SUCCESSORS IN COGGESHALL — p. 134.
STATE OF OXFORD DURING THE EARLY PART OF LAST CENTURY, p. 180.
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD OPEN TO ALL DURING THE COMMONWEALTH, p. 187.
RACOVIAN CATECHISM, — p. 214.
ON THE USE OF THE TERM INDEPENDENT, p. 229.
PRAYERS OF CROMWELL’S CHAPLAINS, — p. 250.
THE ALLEGED SCHISMATIC NATURE OF INDEPENDENCY, p. 265.
THE EARLY INDEPENDENTS OBSERVED THE LORD’S SUPPER WEEKLY, p. 308.
PERSECUTIONS IN NEW ENGLAND, — p. 336.
OWEN’S SUCCESSORS IN BURY STREET, — p. 397.
POSTHUMOUS WRITINGS, — p. 443.
PREFACES TO THE WORKS OF OTHERS, — p. 443.
LETTERS FROM DR. OWEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS.
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE WORKS OF OWEN,
INDEX.


MEMOIRS,
etc.
CHAPTER I.
Introduction — Family of Owen — State of the Puritans — Owen’s Education — State of Oxford —
Owen’s religious convictions — Leaves the University — Takes part with the Parliament — The
Civil War — Owen’s Conversion — Publishes his Display — Progress of Arminianism —
Presentation to the Living of Fordham — Marries his first Wife.
THE seventeenth century was the age of illustrious events and illustrious
men in Britain. The civil and religious struggles and changes which took
place during that eventful period, the causes in which they originated,
and the effects with which they were followed, are worthy of the attention
of every British Christian, and are powerfully calculated to excite and
improve both his religious and his patriotic feelings. While he will often
have occasion to drop the tear of pity over his bleeding country, he will
frequently be called to adore the wondrous operations of that glorious
Being, “who rides in the whirlwind, and directs the storm;” who piloted
the Ark of the Church through the mighty tempest which threatened its
destruction, and finally secured its safety by a covenant of peace, we trust
never to be broken.
In every rank and profession there were then many distinguished
individuals whose independence of mind in the cause of their country,
whose laborious researches in every department of literature, or whose
important discoveries in philosophy, conferred honours on themselves
and on the land of their birth, of which they can never be deprived.
2
The names of Pym and Hampden, of Sidney and Russel will live while the
fabric of the British Constitution continues to be loved and respected;
those of Locke and Boyle, of Wallis and Newton, can perish only with the
records of science and time. A Churchman can never think of Hooker and
Taylor, Chillingworth and Barrow, without emotions of the profoundest
delight and veneration. And while the cause of Non-conformity — which
the amiable and candid Doddridge pronounced to be “the cause of truth,
honour and liberty, and of serious piety too,” — continues to be dear to
those whose ancestors defended and suffered for it, the page which
3
records the names and the virtues of Baxter and Bates, of Howe and
Owen, however imperfect, will always secure attention and respect.
We leave to Statesmen the commemoration of those who then shone in
the cabinet, or distinguished themselves in the field. We resign to
Churchmen the task of recording the learning, piety, and sufferings of
their brethren. The task of preserving the memory of his forefathers
naturally devolves on a Dissenter. If he were to be indifferent to their
reputation and their wrongs, who can be expected to assert them? And if
he is zealous in their cause and anxious to vindicate their honour, the
motive is creditable to his feelings, whatever may be the degree of success
which attends his attempt.
It is rather surprising that, while the minutest researches have been made
into the lives of many obscure individuals, no separate work has been
devoted to the life of John Owen.
3
Mr. Clarkson, who preached his funeral sermon, observed, “that the
account which is due to the world of this eminent man deserved a
volume,” which he hoped would soon make its appearance. Cotton
Mather, in that singular work “Magnalia Americana Christi,” published
twenty years afterwards, declared that, “the church of God was wronged
in that the life of the great John Owen was not written.” About twenty
years after that, prefixed to the folio edition of his Sermons and Tracts,
appeared the first and the only account of him which can be depended on.
But though it appears to have been drawn up by Mr. Asty, with the
assistance of Sir John Hartopp, it is both inaccurate and imperfect, and it
does not contain so many pages as the Doctor had written books. With
the exception of this, and the scanty notices of general biography, Owen
is only known by means of his writings.
No necessity exists for stating here the claims which the subject of these
memoirs has to a distinct account of his life. Every theological scholar,
every lover of experiential piety, every reader of our civil and
ecclesiastical history, as well as every dissenter, has heard of the name,
and known something of the character of Owen — a man, “admired when
living, and adored when lost;” whose works yet praise him in the gates,
and by which he will continue to instruct and comfort the church for ages
to come.
Those who believe that “God has made of one blood all nations of men,”
will never themselves be flattered by the pride of ancestry, nor attach
much importance to it in others. No harm, however, can arise from
noticing, when it can be done with any degree of certainty, the particular
line of the Adamic race to which a respected individual owed his birth.
4
Therefore, regardless of Bishop Watson’s remark that “German and
Welsh pedigrees are subjects of ridicule to most Englishmen,” we shall
proceed to give a short account of the family of Owen.
John Owen derived his pedigree from Lewis Owen, Esq. of Kwyn, near
Dollegelle, a gentleman of about £300 per annum, and lineally descended
from a younger son of Kewelyn ap Gwrgan, Prince of Glamorgan, Lord of
Cardiffe, the last family of the five regal tribes of Wales. This Welsh
Prince was Vice-Chamberlain and Baron of the Exchequer in North
Wales, about the middle of the reign of Henry VIII, and continued so till
the eighth year of Elizabeth. Lewis Owen was High Sheriff of the county
of Merioneth, and lost his life on returning from the assizes at
Montgomery, by the hands of some outlaws, at a place called Dugsed. A
cross was erected there to his memory, which still goes by the name of
“the gate of the Baron’s cross.”
Griffith, the fifth son of this gentleman had a daughter named Susan, who
was married to Humphrey Owen, of the same family in another line. This
Humphrey had fifteen sons, the youngest of whom was Henry, the father
4
of the subject of our history.
Henry Owen, being not merely a younger, but the youngest son of so
numerous a family, was bred to the Church. After studying at Oxford, he
5
taught a school for some time at Stokenchurch. He was afterwards
6
chosen minister of Stadham, in the county of Oxford, where he remained
many years. In the latter part of his life he became rector of Harpsden, in
the same county, where he died, on the eighteenth of September, 1649, in
the sixty-third year of his age, and was buried in the chancel of the
7
church.
5
“My father,” said his son, “was a Non-conformist all his days, and a
8
painful labourer in the vineyard of the Lord.” “He was reckoned,” says
the author of his memoirs, “a strict Puritan, for his more than ordinary
9
zeal, in those early days of reformation.”
For many years, the situation of the Puritans had been gradually
becoming more unpleasant and intolerable. The haughty spirit of
Elizabeth had made their yoke heavy, but the vanity and dogmatism of
her successor rendered it almost insupportable. The great body of them
had no difference with their opponents about the lawfulness of
ecclesiastical establishments. They had no doubts as to the propriety of
using the sword to a certain extent for the purpose of producing unity of
sentiment and uniformity of practice in religion. They objected not so
much to the interference of the civil powers in the affairs of the church, as
to the mode and degree of that interference. “They were,” says Neal, “for
one religion, one uniform mode of worship, one form of discipline for the
whole nation, with which all must comply outwardly, whatever were their
10
inward sentiments.” “The standard of uniformity,” says the same
writer, “according to the Bishops, was the Queen’s authority and the laws
of the land; according to the Puritans, it was the decrees of provincial and
national synods, allowed and enforced by the civil magistrate. But neither
party was for admitting that liberty of conscience and freedom of
profession, which is every man’s right as far as is consistent with the
11
peace of the civil government he lives under.”
6
Their objections to the Church of England respected chiefly the nature
and extent of the King’s supremacy, the unscripturalness of some of her
offices, the Popish character of parts of her liturgy, and some of the
modes of worship which she enjoined. Had the crown resigned its
authority to church rulers, had the offices of Metropolitan, Archbishop,
and some others been abrogated, had the liturgy been reformed, had the
sign of the cross in Baptism, kneeling at the Supper, and bowing at the
name of Jesus been done away with; had they been allowed to wear a
round instead of a square cap, and a black gown in place of a white
surplice, then the great mass of the early Puritans and even of the later
Non-conformists would have become the warmest friends of the Church.
They were not Dissenters from its constitution, but Non-conformists to
some of its requisitions.
These things are not stated to insinuate that the points in dispute were of
small importance, for nothing is unimportant which is enforced on the
conscience as part of religion. Rather, it is to show what they really were;
and to enable the reader to understand the nature and progress of those
religious, discussions which for a long period occupied so large a portion
of the public attention. It is not so wonderful that the views of the
Puritans on many subjects were imperfect; but it is surprising that they
saw so much — and that, with those views, they were able to so boldly
contend for what they believed to be the cause of God. It cannot be
doubted that if their object had been accomplished, the Church of
England would have been much improved.
7
And so far as externals are concerned, it would have been brought nearer
to the model of Scripture, and thus rendered worthier of the designation
her sons are so proud of: “The glory and bulwark of the Reformation.”
But although they had succeeded, so long as the spiritual and temporal
kingdoms remained incorporated, the root of the evil must have
continued still.
High expectations were formed by the Puritans from the accession of
James I. to the throne of England. But alas! They were soon most
miserably disappointed. James had been educated a Presbyterian, was a
professed Calvinist, and a sworn Covenanter. But after he obtained the
British crown, he became a high Episcopalian, a determined Arminian,
and a secret friend to Popery. His bad principles, improper alliances, and
unworthy conduct, laid the foundation of much future misery to his
country, which burst like a torrent upon his successor, and finally swept
his family from the throne. The Hampton Court conference, held in 1603,
revealed the high ideas which James entertained by kingly prerogative,
and how much he was disposed to domineer over the consciences of his
subjects. “No Bishop, no King” was his favourite maxim. “I will have one
doctrine, one discipline, one religion in substance and in ceremony,” said
his Majesty, in the plenitude of his wisdom and authority; and concluded
this mock discussion in which the Puritans were brow-beaten and
insulted, by vowing that he would make them conform, or hurry them out
of the land, or do worse.
For once, James was as good as his word, and everything was done which
was likely to render his conscientious subjects miserable, or to drive them
to extremes. The same measures were persevered in, and increased in
severity, by the infatuated and unfortunate Charles.
8
The consequence was that many left the land of their fathers, and found a
refuge or a grave in a distant wilderness; some wandered about in
England, subject to many privations and hardships, doing good as they
had opportunity; while others endeavoured to reconcile the rights of
conscience, with submission to the powers that were — and prayed and
hoped for better days.
Of this last description was Henry Owen. A full account of his family is no
longer to be obtained. It appears, however, that he had at least three sons
and a daughter. His eldest son, William, was a clergyman. He is described
in the records of the Herald’s College “of Remnam, in the county of Berks,
parson of Ewelme in the county of Oxford,” where he died in 1660, in the
forty-eighth year of his age. His third son, Henry, appears to have chosen
a military profession. He went over to Ireland with Cromwell as an
ensign, and there seems to have acquired some landed property. He died
12
before John, but his son succeeded to the Doctor’s estates in England.
His daughter married Mr. John Hartcliffe, minister of Harding, in
Oxfordshire, and afterwards of Windsor. I know little of him; but his son
made some figure. He was educated for the Church, and in 1681, after a
keen contest, he succeeded Mr. John Goad as master of Merchant Tailor’s
School. In the contest, he appears to have been assisted by his uncle, who
exerted his influence among the London merchants, on behalf of his
nephew.
9
His predecessor, Goad, was ejected for his Popery. Mr. Hartcliffe wrote
several treatises, became D.D. in 1681, and died in 1702, Canon of
13
Windsor. It is said he once attempted to preach before Charles II; but
not being able to utter one word of the sermon, he descended from the
pulpit as great an orator as he went up, treating his Majesty with a silent
14
meeting.
John, the second son, was born at Stadham, in the year 1616; the very
year in which Mr. Jacob formed, in England, the first Church of that
denomination of which Owen was destined to be the brightest ornament,
and one of the most learned and successful advocates.
Young Owen, after receiving the first rudiments of education (probably
from his father), was initiated into the principles of classical learning by
Edward Sylvester, master of a private academy at Oxford. This
respectable tutor not only taught Greek and Latin, but made or corrected
Latin discourses, and Greek and Latin verses, for members of the
University. They found it necessary to exhibit what they were unable to
produce, and lived to see a number of his pupils make a distinguished
figure in the world. Among these (besides Owen) were Dr. John Wilkins,
who was more celebrated for his philosophical talents than for being
Bishop of Chester; Dr. Henry Wilkinson, Margaret professor in the
University during the Commonwealth, and afterwards a celebrated Non-
conformist; and a man better known than either of the preceding,
William Chillingworth, author of “The Religion of Protestants,” a work
15
which confers an honour on the age that produced it.
10
Owen appears to have made rapid progress at school, for by the time he
was only twelve years of age, he was fit for the University, and actually
admitted a student of Queen’s College, Oxford. We can have no doubt
that his father afforded him all the assistance in his power in the
acquisition of learning, as he knew that he had no property to give him,
and that he would have to fight his way through the world by his own
exertions. Nothing, perhaps, is more unfavourable to genius and industry
than being born to a fortune already provided. It diminishes or destroys
that excitement which is absolutely necessary to counteract our natural
indolence; while it too often encourages those feelings of pride and vanity
which are destructive of application and success. Hence, while the heir to
titles and to wealth has often passed through the world in inglorious
obscurity, the younger son has frequently supported and increased the
honours of his family. Most persons who have risen to eminence in any
profession, have given early promise of future distinction. There are
indeed exceptions to this remark. Many a fair blossom has gone up as
dust, and the seed sometimes lies so long under the surface, that all hope
of its resurrection is given over — when some powerful cause suddenly
quickens the latent germ, and develops the energies and beauties of the
future plant.
11
When Owen joined the University, and while he continued at it, few of its
leading members were distinguished either for their learning or their
talents. The Provost of his College was Dr. Christopher Potter, originally a
Puritan. But after Laud’s influence at Court, he became a creature of that
ambitious Prelate’s, and was considered a supporter of his Arminian
sentiments. Wood says he was learned and religious. But he produced
nothing which reveals much evidence of either, except a translation from
the Italian of Father Paul’s history of the “Quarrels of Pope Paul V with
16
the State of Venice.” The Vice-Chancellors of the University during
 17
Owen’s residence were Accepted Frewen, afterwards Archbishop of
York; — William Smith, Warden of Wadham College; — Brian Duppa,
Bishop of Winchester, of whose qualifications Wood gives rather a
curious account:
“He was a man of excellent parts, and in every way qualified for his function, especially as to the
attractiveness of his person, and gracefulness of his deportment, which rendered him worthy of
18
the service of a court, and in every way fit to stand before Princes:”

— Robert Pink, Warden of New College, a zealous defender of the rights

of the University, and who was much esteemed by James I for his
dexterity in disputing, as he was also by Charles I for his eminent loyalty;
19
— and Dr. Richard Baylie, President of St. John’s College and Dean of
Salisbury. The Margaret Professor of Divinity, was Dr. Samuel Fell, a
parasite of Laud’s, by whose means he was advanced to the Deanery of
Lichfield. He was ejected from all his preferments by the Parliamentary
20
visitors in 1647. The Hebrew Professor was John Morris, of whom we
know nothing as an oriental scholar; and Henry Stringer was Professor of
Greek, of whose classical attainments we know as little.
12
Barlow is almost the only name we are now disposed to associate with
learning: all the others are either forgotten or unknown. It will afterwards
appear how different the state of the University became, in regard to men
of eminence and learning, when Owen filled its highest offices.
In Queen’s College, Owen studied mathematics and philosophy under
Thomas Barlow, then fellow of the college of which he afterwards was
chosen Provost when Owen was Vice-chancellor. He was made a bishop
in 1676, and lived till after the revolution. Barlow was a Calvinist in
theology, an Aristotelian in philosophy, and an Episcopalian in church
government. He was a man of eminent talents, and according to Granger,
as great a master of the learned languages, and of the works of the
21
celebrated authors who have written in them, as any man of his age.
Owen studied music (for recreation) under Dr. Thomas Wilson, a
celebrated performer on the flute, who was for some years in constant
attendance on Charles I, who used to lean on his shoulder during the time
he played. He was made Professor of Music in Oxford by Owen when he
was Vice-chancellor of the University. This shows that the men of that
period were neither so destitute of taste nor so morose and unsocial as
 22
they have been often represented.
Moderate talents assisted by diligent application, will frequently do more
than genius of a much higher order, whose efforts are all irregular and
desultory. But when talents and laborious exertion are combined with the
fervour of youth and the aids of learning, much may be expected from the
result.
13
Our student pursued his various branches of improvement with
incredible diligence, allowing himself for several years, not more than
four hours sleep a night. It is impossible not to applaud the ardour which
this application reveals. The more time a student can redeem from sleep,
and other indulgences, so much the better. But it is not every constitution
that is capable of such an expenditure. And many an individual in
struggling beyond his strength for the prize of literary renown, has
procured it at the expense of his life, or the irreparable injury of his future
comfort. Owen himself is said to have declared afterwards that he would
gladly part with all the learning he had acquired in younger life by sitting
23
up late at study, if he could but recover the health he lost by it. He who
prefers mercy to sacrifice, requires nothing in ordinary circumstances
beyond what the human system is fairly capable of bearing.
Owen appears to have been blessed with a sound and vigorous
constitution. This, no doubt, enabled him to use greater freedoms than he
otherwise dared to have done. To brace and strengthen it, he was not
inattentive to those recreations which tended to counteract the pernicious
effects of his sedentary occupations. He was fond of forceful and robust
exertion — such as leaping, throwing the bar, ringing bells, etc. Such
diversions may appear to some to be ridiculous and unbecoming; but this
arises from lack of consideration. That kind and degree of exercise which
are necessary for preserving the proper temperament of the human
system, are not only lawful, but a part of the duty which we owe to
ourselves.
14
Such recreations are not to be compared with those fashionable levities,
and amusements which only tend to vitiate the moral and intellectual
powers, and to enervate rather than strengthen the constitution. It is
much more gratifying to see the academic robes waving in the wind, than
shining at the midnight dance, or adorning the front ranks of a theatre.
On the 11th of June, 1632, Owen was admitted to the degree of B. A.; and
on the 27th of April, 1635, at the age of nineteen, he commenced Master
24
of Arts, a designation which was then more declarative of learning and
diligence than it has since become. When literary degrees are spurs to
application, and the rewards of merit, they answer a useful purpose. But
when they come to be almost indiscriminately bestowed, they lose their
value, are despised by the genuine scholar, and are sought after only by
those on whom they can confer no honour or distinction.
During this period of his life, his mind seems to have been scarcely, if at
all, influenced by religious principle. His whole ambition was to raise
himself to some eminent station in church or state, to either of which he
was then indifferent. Afterwards he used to acknowledge that, being
naturally of an aspiring mind, and very desirous of honour and
preferment, he applied himself very closely to his studies in the hope of
accomplishing these ends. Then, the honour of God and the good of his
country were objects subservient to the advancement of his own glory or
interest. Had he continued in this state of mind, he would probably have
succeeded; but it would have been in another cause than that to which he
was finally devoted.
15
Instead of a Puritan, he might have been found among their persecutors,
and his name have descended to posterity in the roll of state oppressors,
or bigoted churchmen. Many young persons who have been devoted by
their parents to the church, and have improved their talents in the hope
of rising in it, would have conferred a blessing on themselves, as well as
on the church and the world, had they found another path to earthly
glory. Some radical mistake must exist when the church of Christ
becomes (or is capable of being made) the theatre of worldly ambition.
The merchandise of “the souls of men,” is the most infamous traffic in
which man can engage, and constitutes one of the chief of those
delinquencies charged on the mystical Babylon.
Owen, however, was unconsciously preparing himself, for shining in
another career. He was now under a higher, though unperceived
influence, acquiring the capacity for using those weapons which he was
destined to wield with mighty effect against all the adversaries of the
gospel. “Many purposes are in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord
— that shall stand.” Pro 19.21 He was probably often exulting in the
prospect of wealth and honour, while God was preparing him to suffer
many things for his sake, and for important usefulness in his own cause.
The limited resources of his father prevented allowing him any liberal
support at the university. But this deficiency was amply made up by an
uncle, the proprietor of a considerable estate in Wales. Having no
children of his own, his uncle intended to make him his heir. Although
this intention was not carried into effect, his nephew must have felt
grateful on account of the assistance afforded during his early years.
16
Previously to his leaving the university, which took place in his twenty-
first year, Owen appears to have become the subject of religious
convictions. By what means these were produced, it is now impossible to
ascertain. He had received a religious education in his father’s house, and
early impressions then made, may have been revived and deepened by
circumstances which afterwards occurred. The impressions were very
powerful, and appear to have deeply affected his mind and even his
health. The course of spiritual conflict through which he passed,
undoubtedly fitted him for what he was to do at a future period; and it
probably infused that tone of spiritual feeling into his soul which runs
through all his writings. The words of the apostle are no less applicable to
mental than to bodily sufferings; “who comforts us in all our tribulations,
that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, by the
comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.” 2Cor 1.4 If the
spiritual physician knows nothing from experience, of the malady of the
patient, then he is but imperfectly qualified to administer relief.
It was while he was under these religious convictions that Owen left the
university. And as they chiefly led to this event, it is necessary to notice
the circumstances which occasioned it. For several years things had been
gradually coming to a crisis between the court and the country. The
aggressions of the former on the civil and religious liberties of the latter,
had become so numerous and so flagrant, as to occasion a very general
spirit of discontent. In an evil day, Charles had advanced to the primacy
of England William Laud. He was a man of undoubted talents and
learning, but of high monarchical principles; he was fond of pomp and
ceremony. Though he was no friend to the Pope at Rome, he had little
objection to himself being the Pope in England. His arbitrary conduct in
the star chamber, his passion for ceremony in the church, and his love of
Arminianism in the pulpit, hastened his own fate, and promoted that of
his master.
17
The best of the clergy were either silenced, or obliged to leave the
country. High churchmen were engrossing almost every civil and
ecclesiastical office, to the disappointment of many, and the vexation of
all.
The same year, 1637, that produced the celebrated resistance of
Hampden to illegal taxation, drove Owen from Oxford in consequence of
the ecclesiastical tyranny of Laud. Among the other situations which that
ambitious churchman had monopolized was that of chancellor of Oxford.
By virtue of his office, he caused a new body of statutes to be drawn up
for the university; in the preface to which he clearly intimates that he
25
considered the days of Mary better than those of Edward. In these
statutes, obedience to some superstitious rites was required of the
members of the university, on pain of being expelled. Though the mind of
Owen was not sufficiently enlightened to see the glory of the gospel, his
conscience was brought so far under the authority of Divine revelation,
that he could not submit to these human exactions. On the one side lay all
his worldly prospects; on the other lay the approval of Heaven. He had
the faith and courage to embrace the choice of Moses: he relinquished the
pleasures of the world, rather than sacrifice the honour of his God.
This change of feeling and sentiment was soon discovered by his former
friends. As usually happens in such cases, they forsook the man whom
neither the king nor the primate would delight to honour. The result of
his refusing to submit, and of the opposition of Laud’s party, was his
leaving the university.
18
He was never to return, until He who disposes equally the lot of nations
and of individuals, sent Haman to a scaffold, and raised Mordecai to fill
his place. During this struggle, the mind of Owen appears to have been in
awful spiritual perplexity. This, combined with external circumstances
and the discouraging prospects which were presented, threw him into a
state of profound melancholy. For a quarter of a year he avoided almost
all intercourse with men; he could scarcely be induced to speak. And
when he did say anything, it was in so disordered a manner that it
rendered him a wonder to many.
“Forsaken and forsaking of all friends.
He now perceives where earthly pleasure ends;
His grief the world of all her power disarms,
Wine has no taste, and beauty has no charms:
God’s holy word, once trivial in his view,
Now by the voice of his experience true.
Seems, as it is, the fountain whence alone
26
Must spring that hope, he pants to make his own.”
Only those who have experienced the bitterness of a wounded spirit can
form any idea of the awful distress he must have suffered. Compared with
this anguish of soul, all the afflictions which can befall a sinner are but
trifles. Letting into the mind but one drop of that wrath which shall
finally fill the cup of the ungodly, is enough to poison all the comforts of
life, and to spread mourning and lamentation and woe over the
countenance. It is not in the least wonderful that cases of this kind
sometimes occur; but considering the character of man, it is rather
surprising that they do not more frequently occur. If men were disposed
to seriously reflect on their present condition, and to contemplate their
future prospects, nothing but the gospel could preserve them from the
deepest despair. Perhaps he alludes to this severe distress, among other
things, when he says,
19
“The variety of outward providences and dispensations with which I have myself been exercised,
together with the inward trials with which they have been attended, have left such a constant
27
sense and impression on my spirit, that I cannot but own a serious call to men to beware.”

Such a conflict of feeling, and of so long a continuance, it would have

been strange if he had ever forgotten. And “knowing the terrors of the
Lord,” it would be stranger still, if he had ceased to beseech men to avoid
them.
It is the opprobrium of Oxford, that Locke was expelled from its bowers.
It is little less to its disgrace, that such a man as Owen was compelled to
withdraw from them. The treatment which both those learned men
experienced in this celebrated seat of loyalty and learning, probably
contributed in no small degree to produce that deep-rooted dislike
toward civil and ecclesiastical domination, which appears so
conspicuously in their writings. That which men intended for evil, God
overruled for good. The influence of Owen’s early secession from that
body which holds the right of the church (or rather of the king) to decree
“rites and ceremonies,” was felt by him during the course of his future
life. There is a comfort connected with following the dictates of
conscience in obeying the word of the Lord, which imparts a vigour and
independence to the human character. It can never be felt by the time-
serving votaries of church or state. And it is infinitely more valuable than
all the honours of the one, or the emoluments of the other. It is common
to treat the conduct of such persons as Owen — who left the church for
refusing to submit to the interference of human authority — as
28
unnecessarily punctilious, and as resulting from a narrow conformation
of mind.
20
But let it be remembered that it was not a particular rite or ceremony
which they refused to observe, so much as the principle which enforced
obedience; and the greatness of their minds was revealed in their
willingly exposing themselves to severe suffering for conscience’ sake.
The strong view which Owen took of the matter, is well expressed in the
following passage: —
“I shall take leave to say what is upon my heart, and what, the Lord assisting, I shall willingly
endeavour to make good against all the world, that this principle — that the church has power to
institute any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of God, either as to its matter or
manner, beyond the orderly observance of those circumstances which necessarily attend such
ordinances as Christ himself instituted — this principle lies at the bottom of all the horrible
superstition and idolatry, of all the confusion, blood, persecution, and wars, that have for so long
a season spread themselves over the face of the Christian world. And it is the design of a great
part of the revelation, to reveal this truth. I do not doubt that the great controversy which God
has had with this nation for so many years, was on this account: that contrary to that glorious
light of the gospel which shone among us, the wills and fancies of men — under the name of
order, decency, and the authority of the church (a chimera that none knew what it was, nor in
what its power consisted, nor in whom it resided) — were imposed on men in the worship of
God. Hence the Spirit of God was derided in prayer; hence the powerful preaching of the gospel
was despised; hence the sabbath was decried; hence holiness was stigmatized and persecuted.
And for what?
21
That Jesus Christ might be deposed from the sole privilege and power of making laws in His
church, that the true husband might be thrust aside, and adulterers of his spouse be embraced!
— that task-masters might be appointed over his house, which he never gave to his church, Eph.
4.12 — that a ceremonious, pompous worship, drawn from Pagan, Jewish, and Antichristian
observances, might be introduced. There is not one word or iota of any of this in the whole book
of God. Those who hold communion with Christ are careful, then, of this: that they will allow
nothing, practise nothing, in the worship of God, private or public, except what they have his
warrant for. Unless it comes in his name, with ‘Thus saith the Lord Jesus,’ they will not hear an
 29
angel from heaven.”
Let those who despise the man, answer his reasons, and then boast of
their superiority. The circumstance of Owen’s leaving Oxford, affords
Anthony Wood (who rejoices to get a hit at Puritans and Round Heads),
30
an opportunity to accuse him of perjury. When Owen joined the
university, he very probably took the oaths, and made the usual
subscription. When he saw them to be unlawful, or felt they involved
consequences of which he had not been aware, he renounced them. If this
is perjury, it remains to be considered whether the guilt lies with those
who impose oaths and subscriptions on boys — which they cannot
understand and which, when they come to be men, repent they should
ever have taken — or those who are thus innocently ensnared. Before
such conduct can be charged with perjury, the lawfulness of the oath
must be shown; unlawful oaths and vows require repentance, not
fulfilment. All such subscriptions are unrighteous impositions. They
impede the progress of truth, ensnare the minds of the subscribers, and
operate as a bounty on hypocrisy.
22
They secure a monopoly of privileges to the chartered corporation; and
exclude a large portion of the principle and talent of the country from the
enjoyment of advantages that ought to be common.
Before Owen left college, he received orders from Bishop John Bancroft,
nephew to the celebrated Archbishop of the same name, who occupied
the diocese of Oxford from 1632 to 1640. After leaving it, he lived for
some time as chaplain to Sir Robert Dormer, of Ascot in Oxfordshire, and
as tutor to his eldest son. When Owen left him, he became chaplain to
31
Lord Lovelace of Hurby in Berkshire. He continued In this situation till
the civil war broke out, when — Lord Lovelace espousing the cause of the
king, and Owen espousing the cause of the Parliament — a separation
naturally took place. This step was attended with very important
consequences for Owen. His uncle, being a determined Royalist, was so
enraged at his nephew for attaching himself to the Parliament, that he
turned him out of favour at once, settled his estate on another, and died
without leaving Owen a thing. A step attended with such effects, was not
likely to be rashly taken. It shows that Owen must have been influenced
by some very powerful considerations. Having taken his ground, he was
not to be driven from it by regard to the favour of friends, or the sordid
 32
interests of this world.
The civil war has often been rashly and unjustly charged upon the
Puritans, or Non-conformists. Notwithstanding the force of evidence with
which the accusation has been repelled, it continues to be repeated still.
23
33
Episcopal charges, thirtieth of January sermons, and velvet cushions in
every varied form, endeavour to fix the crime of rebellion on men who
deserve to be held in everlasting remembrance for what they did, instead
of being execrated. Religious dissatisfaction, it should never be forgotten,
was only one of the many causes of that awful convulsion; and religious
persons composed but one of the classes which produced it. The
continual breaches made on the constitution by Charles I, from the
period of his accession to the throne, till he was forced to leave it — by his
arbitrary treatment of his Parliaments; by his persevering attempts to
render himself independent of them; by his illegal modes of raising
money; by the oppression and cruelty with which those who asserted
their civil or religious liberty were treated; — these were the real causes of
the war. And that these measures were prompted chiefly by the high
church party which had the management of the king, and which goaded
him on to the last, is evident to all who have paid the least attention to the
history of the period.
This is how far the Non-conformists were from being the authors of the
rebellion, as it is called. Clarendon himself acknowledges that “the major
part of the long Parliament consisted of men who had no mind to break
the peace of the kingdom, or to make any considerable alteration in the
34
government of church or state.” As an evidence of their attachment to
the church, seventeen days after their first meeting, they made an order
that none should sit in their house, except those who would receive the
35
communion according to the church of England.
24;
The Earl of Essex, the Parliament’s general, was an Episcopalian; the
admiral who seized the king’s ships, and employed them against him, was
the same; Sir John Hotham, who shut the gates of Hull against him, was a
churchman; the same may be affirmed of Sir Henry Vane, Senior; of
Lenthal, the speaker; of the celebrated Pym, and of most of the other
leading persons in Parliament and in the army. So that it is clear as noon
day, that whatever fault attaches to the civil war must be imputed to the
Church of England, whose members were first and deepest in the quarrel.
36

The object of that momentous contest on the part of the community, was
a change of men and measures, and not a subversion of the constitution
of either church or state. Had Charles driven off his popish and
unconstitutional counsellors; had he consented to govern by regular
Parliaments, and revealed sincerity in fulfilling his promises; had he
granted even a limited toleration to his persecuted subjects, and changed
some of his most unadvised and unpopular measures, he would have
retrieved his affairs, established his throne, saved the lives of many
thousands of his subjects, and more than fifty millions of money to his
country — besides preventing that awful catastrophe which men of all
parties must deplore.
The war increased the number of Presbyterians, and augmented their
influence by the calling in of the Scots; it afforded opportunity to the
Independents to propagate their sentiments, and to multiply their
disciples; it also occasioned the increase of the Baptists, and some smaller
sects. But that any or all of these religious parties were the causes of the
war, the chief instruments in carrying it on, or justly chargeable with the
excesses which took place, is unsupported by evidence, and contrary to
37
clearly established facts.
25
The situation of the people of God during this trying period must have
been very perplexing. Neutrality was scarcely possible, especially to those
who possessed rank, or held office in the country. Those who joined the
king were counted enemies to the liberty of England; those who joined
the Parliament were reckoned enemies to legitimate authority. Politics,
however unfriendly to the growth of religion, was required to be studied,
so that the subject might know his duty. All the Non-conformists
naturally took part with the House of Commons, as they saw clearly that
nothing short of their ruin was determined by the king. Most of those
who wished well to true religion, though attached to the church, acted in
the same manner, as it was evident that religion was more at heart with
the Parliamentary party than with the king’s. The friends of liberty, of
course, supported the popular side of the constitution, against the
encroachments of prerogative. It is exceedingly unfair to charge those
who acted in this manner with rebellion. The House of Commons forms
an essential part of the British Constitution, as well as the monarch. At
this lamentable period, the constitution was divided against itself. War
was openly maintained on both sides, between the king and the
Parliament. Liberty and redress were the professed objects of the one
party, power was the object of the other. If you took part with the king,
you were liable to be punished by the Parliament; and if you supported
the Parliament, you were in danger from the wrath of the king. So long as
the constitution was thus divided, no man could be justly chargeable with
crime in following either the one party or the other, as his conscience
38
dictated.
26
As Owen had no connexion with party politics, other than that which
arose from necessity, a view of the progress of civil discord, or a defence
of the measures pursued by the Parliament, cannot be expected here. No
doubt can be entertained about his sincerity. And as conscience evidently
directed the part which he took, if the cause had been even more doubtful
than it appears to me to have been, he should have the full benefit of this
plea. The Rev. Thomas Scott, a respectable minister of the Church of
England, says this:
“Many, no doubt, who obtained an undue ascendency among the Puritans in the turbulent days
of Charles the First, and even before that time, were factious, ambitious hypocrites. But I must
think that the tree of liberty, sober and legitimate liberty, civil and religious, in the shadow of
which we in the establishment, as well as others, repose in peace, and the fruit of which we
gather, was planted by the Puritans, and watered, if not by their blood, at least by their tears and
sorrows. Yet, it is the modern fashion to feed delightfully on the fruit, and then revile, if not
39
curse, those who planted and watered it.”

Owen’s patron having joined the king’s army, Owen went up to London,
where he was an entire stranger, and took lodgings in Charter House
40
yard. Though the force of his convictions had subsided after the first
severe conflict, they continued to disturb his peace. Nearly five years
elapsed from the commencement of his trouble, to obtaining solid
comfort of mind.
27
This was a long time to be harassed with fears and despondency. It was
probably occasioned by receiving a direction in his inquiries, which
increased the evil it that was intended to remove. The dawn of light,
however, was now at hand. The glory of the gospel speedily dispersed his
darkness, and produced feelings of joy and happiness corresponding with
to his former depression, and of which he never again seems to have been
altogether deprived.
During his residence in the Charter House, he accompanied a cousin of
his to Aldermanbury church to hear Mr. Edmund Calamy, a man of great
note for his eloquence as a preacher, and for his boldness as a leader of
the Presbyterian party. By some unexplained circumstance, Mr. Calamy
was prevented from preaching that day. Consequently, not knowing who
was to preach, many left the church. Owen’s cousin urged him to go and
hear Mr. Jackson, the Minister of St. Michael’s, Wood-street, a man of
prodigious application as a scholar, and of considerable celebrity as a
preacher. Owen, however, being seated, and unwilling to walk further,
refused to leave the church till he saw who was to preach. At last a
country minister, unknown to the congregation, stepped into the pulpit.
After praying very fervently, he took for his text, Mat. 8.26. “Why are you
fearful? O ye of little faith!” The very reading of the text appears to have
impressed Owen, and led him to pray most earnestly that the Lord would
bless the discourse to him. The prayer was heard — for in that sermon,
the minister was directed to answer the very objections which Owen had
commonly brought against himself. And though the same answers had
often occurred to him, they had not previously afforded him any relief.
But now Jehovah’s time of mercy had arrived, and the truth was received,
not as the word of man, but as the word of the living and true God. The
sermon was a very plain one — the preacher was never known — but the
effect was mighty through the blessing of God.
28
All instruments are equally efficient in the hand of the Great Spirit. It is
not by might nor by power that the Lord frequently effects the greatest
works, but by means apparently feeble, and even contemptible. Calamy
was a more eloquent and polished preacher than the country stranger.
And yet, Owen had perhaps often heard him in vain. Had he left
Aldermanbury church, as proposed, he might have been disappointed
elsewhere; but he remained and enjoyed the blessing. The facts now
recorded may afford encouragement and reproof, both to ministers and
hearers. It may not always be practicable to hear whom we admire; but if
he is a man of God, an eminent blessing may accompany his labours. The
country minister may never have known, till he arrived in another world,
that he had been instrumental in relieving the mind of John Owen. And
doubtless, many similar occurrences are never known here. How
encouraging this is to the faithful labourer! It may appear strange to
some, that the same truths should produce an effect at one time, and not
another. But those who are at all acquainted with the progress of the
gospel among men will not be surprised. The success of Christianity, in
every instance, is the effect of Divine sovereign influence; and that is
exerted in a manner exceedingly mysterious to us. “The wind blows where
it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes
from, and where it goes: so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
Joh 3.8 The darkness of Owen’s mind was now happily removed; his
health, which had been impaired by depression of spirits, was restored,
41
and he was filled with joy and peace in believing.
29
“The sound of pardon pierc’d his startled ear.
He dropt at once his fetters and his fear,
A transport glows in all he looks and speaks.
42
And the first thankful tears bedew his cheeks.”
By his own account, the long and heavy depression which Owen had
laboured under, had greatly subdued his natural vanity and ambition.
The circumstances of his conversion must have convinced him of the
utter insufficiency of mere learning to accomplish the salvation of men.
His own experience must have simplified his view of the gospel, and of
the mode of stating it to others; and it contributed to impart that spiritual
unction to his preaching and writing, by which they are eminently
distinguished. When or where he began his labours in the ministry, we
cannot discover. It is very probable that he began them in London, and
about the period of this remarkable change — perhaps not long before his
appearance as an author, in which capacity we shall now proceed to view
him.
While living in Charter House yard, he published his “Display of
Arminianism, etc.” It is a work which deserves attention on its own
account, from its being the first performance of our Author, and from
having contributed to lay the foundation of his future reputation. The
imprimatur is dated March 2nd, 1612. It is highly probable that the
unhappy state of his own mind was occasioned by some
misunderstanding of the subjects which the Arminian controversy
embraces; and that this led him to so fully investigate them, as this tract
shows he had done.
30
As it appeared soon after his mind had obtained comfort, a great part of it
must have been written before, or at least so fully digested in his mind,
that he could soon put it together after he got possession of the key which
unlocks most of the difficulties.
The Arminian discussion involves a variety of important points, some of
which are not peculiar to Christianity; they have been the fruitful sources
of fierce contention, Milton represents the fallen angels themselves as
disputing about some of them, with no better success than men.
“Others apart sat on a hill retir’d
In thought more elevate; and reason’d high
Of Providence, foreknowledge, will and fate,
Fix’d fate, freewill, foreknowledge absolute;
43
And found no end in wand’ring mazes lost.”
44
The discussions of the ancient philosophers — about the Origo Mali; the
disputes of the Fathers and Schoolmen, and of the Jesuits and Jansenists
about grace and predestination; and the altercations of modern
philosophers respecting liberty and necessity — are all related to the
Arminian controversy, and may all be traced to a common cause. It is the
desire to know what God has not revealed, and the vain attempt to
reconcile apparent difficulties in the government of heaven, with the
constitution of man. What the dark ages could not conceal, nor popery
itself subdue, the Reformation was more likely to excite than to
extinguish. Accordingly, the work of Luther, “De Servo Arbitrio” and the
reply of Erasmus, “De Libero Arbitrio,” show how early these subjects
occupied the attention of the Reformers, and with what keenness they
engaged in their discussion.
31
Calvin took high ground on this controversy; and both by his talents and
learning, was peculiarly fitted to explore the niceties of theological and
metaphysical debate. His leading views, which he stated with great
perspicuity, and defended with uncommon ability, were both more
scriptural and philosophical than those to which they were opposed. But
in his minor details and illustrations he has sometimes expressed himself
incautiously, and has afforded too much room for Arminians to dispute,
45
and for Antinomians to abuse his doctrines.
Long before the time of Arminius, some of the principles which he
brought forward, had been introduced into the Low Countries. But they
had been prevented from making much progress by the vigilance of the
clergy, and the opposition of the magistrates. When published by
Arminius, they experienced both support and opposition. He died after
the controversy had raged with considerable fierceness, but before it
assumed that formidable aspect which finally involved the States in the
most violent civil commotions. After his death, the debates continued to
spread over Holland. The side of the Arminians was taken by Episcopius,
who became their leader, by Grotius and Hoogerbeets; and opposed by
Gomarus for religious reasons, and by Maurice, Prince of Orange, for
political reasons. The far-famed Synod of Dort was called to heal the
divisions, and to reconcile the contending parties of the church. As might
have been expected, this measure completely failed, though it cost the
States ten tons of gold. The Arminians complained that they were brow-
beaten and condemned instead of being heard; and for refusing to
46
submit, they were imprisoned and banished.
32
From Holland, the dispute was imported into Britain. Previous to the
Synod of Dort, though individuals might have believed and taught
differently, Calvinism was the prevailing theological system of this
country. The complexion of the THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES is evidently
Calvinistic. They were understood in this sense by their framers, as the
British and the Continental Reformers were almost all Predestinarians.
This sense was affixed to them by the succeeding Fathers of the English
Church, and by the body of the Puritans. It was among the ridiculous
inconsistencies of James I to oppose the Arminians abroad, and to
support them at home. He wrote against Arminius; protested against the
appointment of Vorstius to succeed him in the divinity chair of Leyden;
sent deputies to the Synod of Dort to get the party condemned; and about
the same time, he used means for its advancement in England. In 1616,
he sent directions to the University of Oxford respecting the disputed
points. In 1622, orders were issued that none under the degree of bishop
or dean should preach on any of these topics. The Arminian clergy were
promoted in the church, and their writings protected. The reasons for this
inconsistency in James’s conduct are to be found in his love of flattery
and power. The English Arminians were, in general, high church —
fawning courtiers — ever ready to burn incense at the altar of the king’s
supremacy, and to preach to the multitude his divine right to dispose of
47
their persons and properties as he thought proper.
33
What the father thus inconsistently supported, the son endeavoured to
raise to celebrity. In the reign of Charles I, Arminianism combined with
the doctrine of passive obedience, and respect for Popish ceremonies,
became the religion of the court, and the road to royal favour. The whole
High Church party, with Laud at its head, ranked under its banners, and
supported its authority by royal and episcopal patronage, and high
commission and star-chamber decisions. In a speech in the House of
Commons, November 23rd, 1640, Sir Edward Deering said,
“Truth is suppressed, and popish pamphlets fly abroad, cum privilegio. Witness the audacious
and libelling pamphlets against true religion by Pocklington, Heylin, Cosins, Studley, and many
48
more; I name no bishops, I only add, etc.”

The progress of Arminianism in England, and the causes of that progress,

are thus ingeniously noticed by Owen in the preface to this first
production of his pen.
“Never were so many prodigious errors introduced into a church, with so high a hand, and with
so little opposition, since Christians were known in the world. The chief cause I take to be that
which Eneas Sylvius gave, why more maintained that the Pope is above the Council, than that
the Council is above the Pope. Because Popes gave archbishoprics and bishoprics, etc.; but the
Councils sued in forma pauperis. And, therefore, they could scarcely get an advocate to plead
their cause. The fates of our church having of late devolved the government of it onto men
tainted with this poison, Arminianism became backed with the powerful arguments of praise
and preferment, and quickly beat poor naked truth into a corner.”
34
The great object of the work is to give a view of the sentiments of the
Arminians on the decrees of God, Divine foreknowledge, Providence, the
resistibility of Divine grace, original sin; and, in short, all the leading
topics of this important and extensive controversy. Owen extracts from
the writings, chiefly of the continental divines, those passages which
contain the most explicit declaration of their sentiments; and states what
had occurred to him, in the way of answer. Each chapter is concluded by
a tabular view of those passages of Scripture which support the orthodox
doctrine, and quotations from Arminian writers that seem to oppose it. It
is, therefore, according to its title, A Display of Arminianism, not a full
discussion of the controversy. How far modern Arminians would abide by
the views which are given here about their sentiments, I can scarcely tell;
but it cannot be doubted that Owen has given a fair account of the
opinions of their ancestors. Though some of the passages which he quotes
should not, perhaps, be rigidly interpreted, and should probably be
explained in connexion with other parts of their writings; enough still
remains to show that their doctrines were far removed from the
simplicity and purity of Scripture. Perhaps the body of modern Calvinists
would not adopt every expression and sentiment of Owen’s Display — not
because they are more Arminianized than their fathers, but because they
express themselves in fewer words, and are not so attached to the
peculiar phraseology of scholastic disputation.
35
The style of the Display is simpler, and less strongly marked with the
peculiarities of the Author, than some of his subsequent performances.
He probably had more time to correct and polish it, than he afterwards
could command. It occasionally reveals a considerable degree of
sharpness and severity; he may have been led to this, not so much by the
asperity of his own temper, as by the licentious freedoms of the writers he
opposes, and by his strong convictions about the dangerous tendency of
their opinions. It is the duty of all who know the gospel, and especially of
those who preach it, to watch the progress of error, and to endeavour to
obstruct it. But it is of infinite importance that this should be done with
Christian temper, and by employing those weapons which Christianity
sanctions.
The Display is dedicated to the Committee of Religion, and is appointed
to be printed by the committee of the House of Commons, for the
regulating of printing, and the publishing of books. In the dedication he
expresses himself very strongly about the evils which he apprehended
would come upon the state, through the differences in the church, and he
implores the Parliament’s interference. “Are there any disturbances of the
state?” he asks. “They are usually attended with schisms and factions in
the church; and the divisions of the church are too often the subversion of
the commonwealth.” Owen was destined soon to acquire more correct
sentiments: — to see that no political divisions or disturbances in the
kingdoms of the earth, should interrupt the peace and unity of the
kingdom of Christ; and that no other remedy should be employed to cure
error, than the application of truth.
36
The first effect of this publication, was his presentation to the living of
49
Fordham in Essex, from the Committee for purging the church of
scandalous ministers, by the hands of a special messenger. The
sequestered incumbent was Richard Pully. According to Walker, he was
“a person of great learning, religion, and sobriety; but was turned out to
make way for” one whom he erroneously calls “an Independent of New
50
England.” The Committee members, it would appear, were of a
different opinion. The presentation was an honourable mark of their
approval, and it did credit both to themselves and to our Author. His
acceptance afforded much satisfaction to the parish and also to the
surrounding country. It is stated that, while here, an eminent blessing
attended his labours. Many from other parishes resorted to hear him, and
not a few, through the blessing of God, were led to the knowledge of the
truth. The faithful minister will never pass unrewarded. In all situations,
God will acknowledge that portion of his own truth which is properly
brought forward; and seal with success that which has the sanction of his
authority.
Soon after he had taken up his residence in Fordham, he married his first
wife, whose name is said to have been Rooke. He had eleven children by
this lady, all of whom died young, except one daughter, who married
Roger Kynaston, a Welsh gentleman. The match proving an unhappy one,
she returned to her father’s house, where she died of a consumption.
37
No particulars remain about this Mrs. Owen. Even the year of her death
cannot be ascertained; but she is said to have been a person of very
51
excellent character. , Mr. Gilbert alludes to her in his third epitaph on
the Doctor, in these lines: —
Prima Ætatis Virilis consors Maria
Rei domesticae perite studiosa
Rebus Dei domus se totum addicendi,
Copiam illi fecit Gratissimam.


 CHAPTER II.
Owen’s connexion with the Presbyterian body — its state at that time — Baxter’s account of its
intolerance — Owen publishes his “Duty of Pastors and People” — His “Two Catechisms” —
Preaches before Parliament — Publication of the Discourse, and his Essay on Church Government
— His views of Uniformity and Toleration — Leaves Fordham.
By accepting the living of Fordham, Owen formally connected himself
with the Presbyterian body which about that time enjoyed the greatest
prosperity it ever arrived at in England. It is not our object, at present, to
ascertain whether Presbytery was the form of government that prevailed
in the primitive church. But we believe it is generally admitted that Calvin
was the first, after the reformation, to bring it into notice, and reduce it to
practice. Whether this form of polity was suggested to him by the Civil
Government of Geneva, or entirely by the New Testament, will be
credited according to whether men are the abettors or opponents of his
system. Be this as it may, the Presbyterianism of Britain originated in the
school of Geneva. The English exiles, driven to that city of liberty from
their native country by the oppressions of popery and prelacy, were
alienated from the system in which most of them had been educated, by
the conduct of its supporters as well as by its obvious contrariety to the
word of God. They were thus prepared to view with a favourable eye, a
code of government and worship which had more support in Scripture;
which provided a greater degree of parity and power for all the ministers
of the church; and which seemed to be productive of a large portion, both
of spiritual and temporal good to men.
39
The adoption of this system by the reformed churches of Holland, France,
Scotland, and part of Germany, promoted its influence, and increased its
celebrity. The writings of Calvin, Beza, and other celebrated men of the
same school, were extensively read, and their authority generally
respected. The intercourse between England and those countries, which
was greatly increased by the tyrannical measures of government,
advanced the progress of its career in that quarter. The body of the
Puritans was never exactly of the same mind on the subject of church
government. Without doubt, not a few of them were rigid Presbyterians;
but many of them would gladly have submitted to a modified Episcopacy,
such as that which Archbishop Usher recommended. The Divine right of
classical Presbytery came to be contended for, chiefly after the Scotch
army was brought into England, and when a uniformity of faith and
worship in the three kingdoms began to be enforced. For a considerable
time, it appeared likely to gain the ascendency, as most of those who fell
off from Episcopacy (from their dissatisfaction with its forms) united
themselves with it, though many of them were not disposed to admit all
52
its pretensions.
Owen, so far as he was a Presbyterian, was one of this description.
Speaking of his sentiments at this period of his life, and of a Treatise then
published, which we shall immediately notice, he says,
40
“I was then a young man, about the age of twenty-six or twenty-seven. The controversy between
Independency and Presbytery was then young also; nor, indeed, was it clearly understood by
me; especially as stated on the Congregational side. The conceptions delivered in the Treatise
were not, as appears in the issue, suited to the opinion of one party or the other; but such as
occurred to my own naked consideration of things, with relation to some differences that were
then upheld in the place where I lived. Only, being unacquainted with the Congregational way, I
professed myself to own the other party, knowing only that my principles were suited to their
judgment and profession — having looked very little further into those affairs than I was led by
53
all opposition to Episcopacy and ceremonies.”
54
Presbytery was not established in England “by way of probation,” as
Neal expresses it, until 1645; and as presbyteries were not erected for
some time after this, and in many places never erected, it is not probable
55
that Owen was ever a member of a presbytery. This circumstance,
together with his sentiments as stated in the above extract, shows that his
connexion with that body was more nominal than real. To give a correct
view of the state of religion in it about this time is not an easy task. The
partiality of its friends has perhaps led them to exaggerate its
excellencies, and the dislike of its enemies has induced them to aggravate
and multiply its faults. It doubtless embraced many individuals,
estimable for their piety, and celebrated for their learning; and not a few
who had suffered much in the cause of God.
41
In a body which contained so many faithful preachers of the truth, there
must have been a large portion of genuine religion; although, from its
principles, many were admitted into fellowship with it, whose profession
56
could not have borne a close investigation. The testimony of Baxter,
whose opportunities of judging were abundant, and whose partiality to
the Presbyterians secures him from the suspicion of misrepresenting
them is as follows: —
“The persons who were called Presbyterians were eminent for learning, sobriety, and piety; and
the pastors, so called, were those who went through the work of the ministry, in diligent, serious
57
preaching to the people, and edifying men’s souls, and keeping up religion in the land.”
— But “I disliked the course of some of the more rigid of them, who drew too near the way of
prelacy by grasping at a kind of secular power; not using it themselves, but binding the
magistrates to confiscate or imprison men, merely because they were excommunicated; and so
corrupting the true discipline of the church, and turning the communion of saints into the
communion of the multitude, who must keep in the church against their wills for fear of being
undone in the world. Whereas a man whose conscience cannot feel a just excommunication
unless it is backed with confiscation or imprisonment, is no fitter to be a member of a Christian
church, than a corpse is fit to be a member of a corporation.
— They corrupt the discipline of Christ by mixing it with secular force; and they reproach the
keys or ministerial power, as if it were not worth a straw unless the magistrate’s sword enforces
it; and worst of all, they corrupt the church by forcing in the rabble of the unfit, and unwilling,
and thereby tempt many godly Christians to schisms and dangerous separations.
42
“Till magistrates keep the sword themselves, and learn to deny it to every angry clergyman who
would do his own work by it, and leave them to their own weapons — the word and spiritual
58
keys; et valeant quantum valere possunt — the church shall never have unity and peace. And
I disliked some of the Presbyterians: that they were not tender enough to dissenting brethren;
but too much against liberty, as others were too much for it; and thought to do by votes and
59
number, that which love and reason should have done.”

Certainly the worst feature of Presbytery about this time, that which
excited the greatest attention, and which ultimately ruined the body, was
its intolerance, or determined and persevering hostility to liberty of
conscience. The most celebrated Presbyterian divines, such as Calamy
and Burgess, in their discourses before Parliament, represented
toleration as the hydra of schisms and heresies, and the floodgate to all
manner of iniquity and danger. Therefore, the civil authorities ought to
60
exert their utmost energy to put it down. Their most distinguished
writers advocated the rights of persecution, and endeavoured to reason,
or shout down religious liberty. With this view chiefly, Edwards produced
his “Gangrena,” and his “Casting down of the last and strongest hold of
Satan, or a Treatise against Toleration.”!!! And — not to note the ravings
of Bastwick, and Paget, and Vicars — it is painful to quote the respectable
names of Principal Baillie of Glasgow, and Samuel Rutherford, Professor
of Divinity in St. Andrews, as engaged in supporting so bad a cause. The
former throughout his “Dissuasive,” reveals how determined a foe he was,
61
to what he calls a “monstrous imagination.” The latter wrote a quarto
volume of four hundred pages “against pretended liberty of conscience.”!!
43
It was the Trojan horse whose bowels were full of warlike sectaries, and
weapons of destruction. Like the fabled box of Pandora, it had only to be
opened to let loose upon the world all the ills which ever afflicted our
race. It was the Diana, before whose shrine the motley groups of
dissenters from presbytery were represented as making their most devout
prostrations. Let the following specimen show that I do not caricature the
persons of whom I am speaking:
“A Toleration is the grand design of the devil — his masterpiece, and chief engine he works by at
this time, to uphold his tottering kingdom. It is the most compendious, ready, sure way to
destroy all religion, lay all waste, and bring in all evil. It is a most transcendent, catholic and
fundamental evil for this kingdom of any that can be imagined. As original sin is the most
fundamental sin, having the seed and spawn of all in it; so a toleration has all errors in it, and all
evils. It is against the whole stream and current of Scripture both in the Old and New Testament;
both in matters of faith and manners; both general and particular commands. It overthrows all
relations, political, ecclesiastical, and economical. And whereas other evils, whether of judgment
or practice, are but against some one or two places of Scripture or relation, this is against all —
this is the Abaddon, Apollyon, the destroyer of all religion, the abomination of desolation and
astonishment, the liberty of perdition, and therefore the devil follows it night and day, working
mightily in many by writing books for it, and in other ways; — All the devils in hell, and their
62
instruments being at work to promote a toleration.”
44
Had these been the sentiments of a few private and violent individuals
only, it might have been proper to pass them by as giving an unfair view
of the principles or spirit of the party with which they were connected.
But when similar sentiments and temper are revealed in the public and
united proceedings of the body, the matter is very different. That this was
the case with the Presbyterians at this time, is too evident from many
facts. The Presbyterian party in the Westminster Assembly defeated the
attempt, recommended by the committee of the Lords and Commons, to
promote a union, if possible, with the Independents. They refused even to
tolerate their churches. Baxter acknowledges that they were so little
sensible of their own infirmities, that they would not agree to tolerate
those who were not only tolerable, but worthy instruments and members
63
in the churches. When they found the Commons would not support
their violent and unreasonable demands to suppress all other sects, they
brought forward the Scotch Parliament to demand that their advice be
64
complied with, and to publish a declaration against toleration. The
whole body of the London ministers addressed a letter to the Assembly,
in which they most solemnly declared how much they “detest and abhor
65
the much endeavoured toleration.” The “Jus divinum of church
government,” published by the same body, argues for “a compulsive,
coactive, punitive, corrective power to the political magistrate in matters
66
of religion.” The provincial assembly of London, the ministers of
Warwickshire and Lancashire, published declarations or addresses to the
same purport.
45
From the latter body we select part of a paper signed by eighty-four of
them, and which they entitle “The harmonious consent of the Lancashire
ministers with their brethren at London:”
“A toleration would be putting a sword in a madman’s hand; a cup of poison into the hand of a
child; a letting loose of madmen with fire-brands in their hands; appointing a city of refuge in
men’s consciences for the devil to fly to; laying a stumbling block before the blind; proclaiming
liberty to the wolves to come into Christ’s fold to prey upon the lambs — neither would it provide
67
for tender consciences, but I would take away all conscience.”
Enough on so unpleasant a subject. Whatever differences existed in this
party on other things, a perfect harmony seems to have prevailed on this.
They were evidently startled and alarmed at the strange appearances of
the religious world. They apprehended nothing less than the utter
destruction of religion from the liberty which men had begun to enjoy.
Their fears magnified the danger, and their attachment to the cause of
God led them to express themselves in the unwarrantable manner which
we have seen. It is only matter of thankfulness that they were not
permitted to grasp the sword. Otherwise something more dreadful than
intemperate language would probably have followed, had they reduced
their language to action.
These violent sentiments and proceedings must have alienated many
from their cause, and led moderate men to doubt the foundation of a
system which seemed to require such support. These, in fact, were the
things which entirely ruined their interest.
46
“If the leading Presbyterians in the Assembly and city had come to a temper with the
Independents, on the footing of a limited toleration, they had in all likelihood prevented the
disputes between the army and Parliament which were the ruin of both; they might then have
saved the constitution, and made their own terms “with the king; but they were enchanted with
the beauties of covenant uniformity, and the Divine right of Presbytery, which, after all, the
 68
Parliament would not admit in its full extent.”
It required, indeed, considerable enlargement of mind, to impartially
examine the causes of the confusion of practice, and conflict of opinion,
which were then operating on the country — and to look through the
tempest which was then howling, to a period of peace which would
certainly follow — to a time when the novelty of liberty would subside
into the enjoyment of its sweets; and when the ebullitions of party would
give way to “quietness and assurance forever.” Milton took the true view
of the state of the country when he exclaimed, in all the fervour and
felicity of the poet and the patriot,
“Methinks I see a noble and puissant nation rousing herself, like a strong man after sleep, and
69
shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I see her, as an eagle, muing her mighty youth, and
kindling her undazzled eyes at the full mid-day beam; purging and unsealing her long-abused
sight at the fountain itself of heavenly radiance; while the whole tribe of timorous and flocking
birds, with those also that love the twilight, flutter about, amazed at what she means, and in
70
their envious gabble would prognosticate a year of sects and schisms.”

We have no reason to think that Owen ever approved of these sentiments

and this spirit in the body with which he was apparently connected for a
time. It seems rather probable that its violent temper tended to shake any
attachment he ever had to it.
47
The moderation of his views, even while a Presbyterian, appeared in the
next production of his pen. It was published not long after his settlement
in Fordham. This was, “The Duty of Pastors and People distinguished —
touching the administration of things commanded in Religion, especially
concerning the means to be used by the people of God, distinct from
Church Officers, for the increasing of Divine knowledge in themselves
and others,” etc., 4to, pp. 56, 1644-. Though it has the date of 1644, it was
71
published in 1643. It is dedicated to his “Truly noble and ever honoured
friend, Sir Edward Scot of Scots Hall, in Kent, Knight of the honourable
order of the Bath.” In the dedication, he tells Sir Edward that he had
published it in consequence of the solicitations of some judicious men
who were acquainted with its contents; and he thanks him for many
favours, especially for the free “proffer of an ecclesiastical preferment,
then vacant, and in his donation;” but these circumstances had prevented
him from accepting. I know nothing of Sir Edward Scot, but Owen makes
most honourable mention of him in this address. From one passage, it
would seem he had been in Sir Edward’s family some time; and as it does
credit to the worthy Knight, and shows something of the troubled state of
the country, it is worth quoting.
“Twice, by God’s providence, have I been with you when your county has been in great danger to
be ruined; once by the horrid insurrection of a rude, godless multitude; and again by the
invasion of a potent enemy prevailing in the neighbour county. At both which times, besides the
general calamity justly feared, particular threatenings were daily brought to you. Under which
sad dispensations, I must crave leave to say that I never saw more resolved constancy, or more
cheerful, unmoved Christian carriage in any man.”
48
His object in this treatise is to steer a middle course between those who
ascribed too much power to ministers, and those who gave too much to
the people. He says,
“Some would have all Christians be almost ministers, others none but ministers be God’s clergy:
those would give the people the keys, these use them to lock them out of the church. The one
ascribing to them primarily all ecclesiastical power for ruling the congregation, the other
abridging them of the performance of spiritual duties for building their own souls. As though
there were no habitable earth between the valley, I almost said, the pit of democratic confusion,
72
and the precipitous rock of hierarchical tyranny.”
His design, therefore, is to show how “The sacred calling may retain its
ancient dignity, though the people of God not be deprived of their
73
Christian liberty.”
In prosecuting this discussion he declares himself to be of “the belief of
that form of church government which is commonly called Presbyterial,
in opposition to Prelatical on the one side, and that which is commonly
74
called Independent on the other.” He was then, as appears from what
we have already quoted, very ignorant of independency, but was more
nearly allied to it in sentiment than he himself knew. Hence, referring
afterwards to this very tract, he says,
“On review of what I asserted there, I found that my principles were more suited to what is the
judgment and practice of the Congregational men, than those of the Presbyterian.
49
Only, whereas I had not received any further clear information in these ways of the worship of
God, which I have since been engaged in, I professed myself of the Presbyterian judgment, in
opposition to democratical confusion; and indeed, I do so still, and so do all the Congregational
men in England that I am acquainted with. So that, when I compare what I wrote then, with my
present judgment, I am scarcely able to find the least difference between one and the other; only
75
a misapplication of names and things by me, gives countenance to this charge.”

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

different from the Reformed Pastor of Baxter, or the Pastoral Care of
Burnet. Both these small works, which contain much important matter,
are occupied with stating and enforcing the duties of ministers; while
Owen’s is devoted to pointing out the rights and duties of the people. The
greater part of it is employed in preliminary disquisition respecting the
condition of the people of God before the coming of Christ. It is only
towards the end of it, that he treats their duty now, in extraordinary and
ordinary circumstances. Without seeming to advocate lay preaching, he
argues from various considerations, that “truth revealed to anyone carries
along with it an immoveable persuasion of conscience, that it ought to be
76
published and spoken to others.” From Acts 8.1-4, he says it appears
“that all the faithful members of the church, being thus dispersed, went
everywhere preaching the word, having no warrant but the general
engagement of all Christians to further the propagation of Christ’s
77
kingdom.” In extraordinary or peculiar circumstances, therefore, he
contends that it is the duty of every man to make known as extensively as
possible, the portion of truth with which he is acquainted.
50
In ordinary circumstances, he maintains that it is the duty of the people
of God,
“for the improving of knowledge, the increasing of charity, and the furtherance of that holy
communion that ought to be among the brethren, to assemble together of their own accord, to
consider one another, to provoke unto love and good works, to stir up the gifts that are in them,
78
yielding and receiving mutual consolation by the fruits of their most holy faith.”

He endeavours to show that such practices soberly conducted, are not

interferences with the pastoral office; but ought to be encouraged by all
the servants of Jesus Christ, as much calculated to promote the progress
of knowledge and holiness. While he everywhere reveals sufficient respect
for the institution of the gospel ministry, there is none of that selfish and
narrow jealousy of encroachment upon its rights; none of that morbid
fear of its honour and dignity; none of that supercilious treatment of the
people — the Laity — who have so frequently been discovered by men in
office — those who savour more of the pride of power, and the spirit of
corporation, than the liberality of Christianity, and disinterested zeal for
the salvation of men.
In the course of this Treatise, Owen twice mentions a Latin tract, “De
sacerdotio Christi contra Armin. Socin. et Papistas.” Besides treating the
priesthood of Christ, it seems to have been intended as an answer to the
views of the Dutch Remonstrants on Liberty of Prophesying. This
production was designed, at first, for the satisfaction of a few private
79
friends; and he tells us it was “nondum edito,” when he published his
Duties of Pastor and People. Nor does it appear to have ever been
published — as before this could take place, his mind underwent an
important change on the subject of religious liberty.
51
As everything on this subject is interesting, the candid avowal of his
change of sentiment on this important topic, contained in the following
passage, is worthy of attention: —
“I remember about fifteen years ago, that meeting with a learned friend, we fell into some debate
about the liberty that began then to be claimed by men, differing from what had been
(Episcopacy), and what was then likely to be established (Presbytery); having, at that time, made
no further inquiry into the grounds and reasons of such liberty than what had occurred to me in
the writings of the Remonstrants — I delivered my judgment in opposition to the liberty pleaded
for — which was then defended by my learned friend. Not many years after, discoursing the
same difference with the same person, we found immediately that we had changed stations; I
was pleading for an indulgence of liberty, and he for restraint. Whether that learned and worthy
person is of the same mind now that he was then, I do not know directly. My change here I own;
my judgment is not the same in this particular that it was fourteen years ago. And in my change,
I have good company whom I need not name. I will only say, it was at least twelve years before
80
the Petition and Advice, in which the Parliament of the three nations has come to my
81
judgment on it.”
This passage exhibits the openness and candour of Owen in a very
interesting light; and it also shows that his changes did not follow, but
preceded the revolutions of public opinion. It must have been no small
gratification to him to see his sentiments afterwards embraced by so large
and enlightened a portion of the community.
52
And it is gratifying to the biographer of Owen to have it in his power to
state that the changes of sentiment and progress of public opinion during
more than a century and a half since Owen’s alteration, so far from
detecting the mistakes, or exposing the danger of his sentiments, have
only more fully elucidated their importance, and established their truth
beyond controversy — and, he trusts, also beyond danger.
’Tis liberty alone, that gives the flow’r
Of fleeting life its lustre and perfume;
And we are weeds without it. All constraint,
Except what wisdom lays on evil men,
 Is evil: hurts the faculties, impedes
Their progress in the road of science; blinds
The eye-sight of Discovery; and begets
In those that suffer it, a sordid mind,
Bestial, a meagre intellect, unfit,
To be the tenant of man’s noble form.”— Cowper’s Task, B.v,
Previous to Owen’s introduction to the parish of Fordham, the parish
itself and the surrounding country had been exceedingly neglected.
Therefore, immediately upon his obtaining the living, he set himself most
resolutely to correct the evils in which it was immersed. Publicly, and
privately, he appears to have laboured for the people’s good. Among other
means which he employed, was that of catechising them from house to
house; a mode of instruction peculiarly adapted to their condition, and
which has often been blessed by God to the souls of men. To enable him
to more effectually prosecute this plan, in the end of the year 1645, he
published, “The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, unfolded in two
short Catechisms; in which those principles of religion are explained, the
knowledge of which is required by the late ordinance of Parliament,
before any are admitted to the Lord’s Supper.” 12mo. pp. 60.
53
The first part of this small production he calls the lesser Catechism,
intended for young persons, and to be committed to memory; the second,
the greater Catechism, designed for the instruction of the grown-up
people, and to assist them in instructing their families. They are both
tolerably simple, and on the whole, well-adapted to the purpose for which
they were prepared.
The Address to his “Loving Neighbours and Christian Friends,” reveals
the deep anxiety he felt for their spiritual welfare, and notes some of the
means he employed to promote it.
“My heart’s desire and request to God for you, is that you may be saved. I say the truth in Christ
also, I do not lie, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great
heaviness, and continual sorrow in my heart, for those among you who as yet walk disorderly,
and not as befits the gospel — little labouring to acquaint themselves with the mystery of
godliness. You know, brethren, how I have been among you and in what manner for these few
years past; and how I have kept back nothing that was profitable to you; but I have shown you
and taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying to all repentance towards God, and
faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. With what sincerity this has been performed by me; with
what results and success received by you, God the righteous Judge will one day declare. In the
meantime, the desire of my heart is to be servant to the least of you in the work of the Lord; and
do that in any way which I can conceive profitable to you, either in your persons or your
families.”
This language shows how much he was in earnest about his work, and
reveals the same spiritual and benevolent mind which he cultivated and
maintained to the end of his course.
54
Both Catechisms are strictly of a doctrinal nature: the omission of moral
duties he explains, by declaring his intention to publish, in a short time,
an Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, with the
Articles of the Creed, in the same form. Before this intention could be
executed, however, he was either removed from Fordham, or his mind
had undergone a change which prevented the fulfilment of his promise.
The fame of Owen was now beginning to extend, which occasioned his
being called to appear in a wider field of labour and influence. On the
twenty-ninth of April, 1646, being the day of the monthly fast observed by
Parliament, he was appointed to preach before that august assembly. The
sermon, which was published by command of the House, and for which
he received its thanks by Mr. Fenner and Sir Peter Wentworth, was
founded on Acts 16.9. It is entitled, “A vision of unchangeable free mercy,
in sending the means of grace to undeserving sinners.” It contains a great
variety of matter, and toward the end, an earnest expostulation about the
destitute state of Wales, and some other parts of the country.
“When manna fell in the wilderness from the hand of the Lord,” he exclaims, “everyone had an
equal share. I would there were not now too great an inequality when in the hand of man. Some
have all, and others none; some sheep daily picking the choice flowers of every pasture, others
wandering upon the barren mountains, without guide or food.”
His dedication of the sermon to the long Parliament is in Latin; and on
account of the high eulogium which it pronounces on that body, it
deserves to be introduced here.
55
“Amplissimo Senatui, etc., etc. To the most noble Senate, the most renowned assembly of
England; — most deservedly celebrated through the whole world, and to be held in everlasting
remembrance by all the inhabitants of this island; — for strenuously, and faithfully, asserting the
rights of Englishmen; — for recovering the liberty of their country, almost ruined by the base
attempts of some; — for administering justice boldly, equally, moderately, impartially; — for
dissolving the power of a hierarchical tyranny in ecclesiastical affairs, and abolishing the popish
newly invented antichristian rites; — for restoring the privileges of the Christian people; — for
enjoying the powerful preservation of the Most High in all these, and in innumerable other
things in council and war, at home and abroad: — To the illustrious, honourable, select
Gentlemen of the Commons in Parliament assembled, this Discourse, humble, indeed, in its
pretensions; but being preached before them by their desire, is now published by their
command…”
It must be acknowledged that this is no ordinary praise. When we
consider the conduct of the Long Parliament up to this period, how
natural it was for a lover of liberty, justice, and religion, to view all its
conduct in the most favourable light; and when we consider the
admissions in its favour, even of its enemies, the language of Owen will
occasion less surprise. Lord Clarendon acknowledges that, “there were
many great and worthy patriots in the House, and as eminent as any age
had ever produced — men of gravity, of wisdom, and of large and
plentiful fortunes.” Hume, almost in the words of Owen, calls it a “famous
Assembly, which had filled all Europe with the renown of its actions.”
56
After this, it will not excite wonder that Milton should praise its
“illustrious exploits against the breast of tyranny, and the prosperous
issue of its noble and valorous counsels.” Without bestowing unlimited or
indiscriminate approval, it may be safely affirmed that it comprehended
many whose stern integrity, and high independence of mind, would have
done honour to the proudest periods of Roman glory. Many of its
measures have never been excelled in the wisdom with which they were
framed, the boldness with which they were advocated, or the intrepidity
and perseverance with which they were executed.
But the chief value of Owen’s discourse now, is the assistance it affords us
in tracing the progress of his mind on some of the subjects which then
agitated the country, and at which we have already glanced. From the
Sermon, and a “Country Essay for the practice of Church Government”
annexed to it, it appears that though Owen still remained in the
Presbyterian body, it could scarcely be said that he was of it. The
discourse itself contains his decided disapproval of the views and spirit of
many in that profession.
“They are,” he says, “disturbed in their optics, or having false glasses, all things are represented
to them in dubious colours. Whichever way they look, they can see nothing but errors, errors of
all sizes, sorts, sects, and sexes, from beginning to end; which have deceived some men — and
not of the worst — and made them think that all before was nothing, in comparison to the
82
present confusion.”
Referring to the same thing in the Essay, he says: “Once more, uniformity
has become the touchstone among most men, however different their
persuasions otherwise. Dissent is the only crime; and where that is all
83
that is culpable, it shall be made all that is so.”
57
About this time, it appears that he had much discussion with the
84
ministers of the county of Essex, on the subject of Church Government.
This occasioned his being very variously represented, and led him at the
suggestion of others to put together, in a great hurry, his thoughts on
85
Church Government, and publish them with his sermon. The substance
86
of it had a good while before been circulated in manuscript; and the
great object of it is to try to unite both parties — Presbyterian and
Independent — or at least to moderate their zeal. While he professes to
87
belong to, or hold some of the principles of the former, he explicitly
declares, at the same time, that he “knew no church government in the
world, already established, of which he was convinced of the truth and
88
necessity in all particulars.” The details of the plan, however, contain
more of Independency than of the other system; perhaps, as much of it as
could be acted on, along with obedience to Parliamentary injunctions. He
also intimates his conviction that “all national disputes about Church
89
Government would prove birthless tympanies.”
The tract contains an explicit declaration of his sentiments on two
important subjects: the folly and uselessness of contention about
conformity, and the necessity and importance of toleration. He protests
against giving men odious appellations on account of their religious
sentiments.
58
And he exposes the absurdity of that species of exaggeration in which
both parties then indulged.
“Our little differences may be met at every stall, and in too many pulpits, swelled by unbefitting
expressions to such a formidable bulk, that poor creatures are startled at their horrid looks and
appearance; while our own persuasions are set out in silken words and gorgeous apparel, as if
we sent them into the world a-wooing. Hence, whatever it is, it must be temple-building, —
God’s government, — Christ’s sceptre, throne, kingdom, — this is the only way. And for want of
which, errors, heresies, and sins spring among us; plagues, judgments, punishments come upon
us. Such big words as these have made us believe that we are mortal adversaries — that one
90
kingdom, communion, and heaven, cannot hold us.”
He had refused, it appears, to subscribe petitions to Parliament about
Church Government, which gave great offence; but he assigns very
satisfactory reasons for it: reasons, however, that show he was far
alienated from the religious party then in power.
Owen had made great advances on the subject of toleration, though he
had not yet arrived at the perfection of his sentiments on this subject.
“Toleration is the alms of authority; yet men who beg for it think so much is at least their due. I
never knew someone to contend earnestly for a toleration of dissenters, who was not one
himself; nor any contend for their suppression, who were not themselves of the persuasion
91
which prevails.”
He does not, however, maintain the necessity of universal toleration. And
yet, when his limitations come to be examined, and the means he would
employ in repressing error and supporting truth are attended to, his
views are, on the whole, highly enlightened and liberal.
59
He uses some strong language about the iniquity of putting men to death
for heresy, declaring that he “had almost said, it would be for the interest
of morality to consent generally to the persecution of a man maintaining
such a destructive opinion.”
“I know,” he says, “the usual pretences for persecution:”
— “such a thing is blasphemy:”
but search the Scriptures, look at the definitions of divines, and you will find heresy in whatever
head of religion it may be, and blasphemy is very different.
— “To spread such errors will be destructive to souls.”
So are many things which yet are not punishable with death; let him who thinks so go kill
Pagans and Mahometans.
— “Such a heresy is a canker.”
But it is a spiritual one; let it be prevented by spiritual means. Cutting off men’s heads is no
proper remedy for it. If state physicians think otherwise, I will say no more, except that I am not
92
of the college.”

There is a prodigious contrast between these sentiments, and those of the

Presbyterian writers quoted in this chapter. Their violence and illiberality
appear more dreadful and improper when brought into contact with the
moderation and liberality of Owen. His mind was rapidly maturing in the
knowledge of the great principles of civil and religious freedom; and by
advocating it, he was destined to acquire for himself a distinguished
reputation, and to confer upon his country a most invaluable boon. He
was already, in the career of discovery, advanced considerably beyond
most men of his time.
60
Undismayed by the collisions and disorders which seemed to arise out of
the enjoyment of liberty, his generous soul exulted in the important
blessing, and confidently anticipated from it the most glorious ultimate
results. Satisfied that the cause of God did not require the support of
man’s puny arm, nor the vengeance of his wrath, he fearlessly committed
it to Him who is engaged to preserve it, and who has said, “Vengeance
belongs to me; I will repay.” Rom 12.19
On a report that the sequestered incumbent of Fordham was dead, the
patron presented another to the living, and dispossessed Owen. It would
appear from this, that in such cases Parliamentary presentations did not
permanently interfere with the rights of the patron; and that a person
presented in the place of someone who was ejected for insufficiency, held
the parish only during the life of the sequestered minister. With the loss
of Fordham, terminated Owen’s connexion with the Presbyterians. His
mind had been in a state of preparation for this for some time.
Every change of religious sentiment is important to the person who
makes it, and ought to be gone into with caution and deliberation. To be
given to change is a great evil, and indicates a weak and unsettled mind.
On the other hand, to be afraid of change is frequently the result of
indifference or sinful apprehension of consequences. It is the duty of
every Christian to follow the teaching of the Spirit in the word of
revelation, and to recollect that he must be accountable for his
convictions in the end. The attempt to smother them is always improper;
and when successful, it must injure the religious feelings of their subject.
To allow hopes or fears of a worldly nature to conquer our persuasion of
what the word of God requires, is to forget the important intimation of
our Lord, — that if anything is loved more than He, it is impossible to be
his disciple.
61
By such conduct, the tribulations of the kingdom may often be avoided;
but its consolations and rewards will also be lost. “If any man serves me,
let him follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; If any
man serves me, my Father will honour him.” Joh 12.26


 CHAPTER III.
Owen’s settlement at Coggeshall — View of Independency — The Brownists — Causes which
retarded and promoted the progress of Independency in England — Owen becomes an
Independent — Publishes Eshcol — A Treatise on Redemption — His views on this subject —
Controversy occasioned by it — Publishes two Discourses on the deliverance of Essex — Remarks
on some sentiments contained in them.
Owen being deprived of Fordham was attended with no loss, either of a
pecuniary or spiritual nature. As soon as the people of Coggeshall, which
is only about five miles distant from Fordham, heard of it, they sent him a
pressing invitation to become their minister; to which the Earl of
Warwick, the patron, immediately acceded by presenting him with the
living. Coggeshall is a considerable market town in Essex, about forty-five
miles distant from London, and was once a manufacturing place of some
note. The church, which is still standing, is a spacious and lofty edifice,
dedicated to St. Peter; and the pulpit in which Owen preached, though
93
not now used, still remains.
His immediate predecessors in this place were John and Obadiah
Sedgwick, brothers, who successively occupied this charge. They were
respectable Presbyterian ministers, and authors of various works which
were then extensively read. The latter, whom Owen succeeded, was a
member of the Assembly; he became preacher at St. Paul’s Covent
Garden, 1646; was in 1653 appointed one of the Tryers, and died at
Marlborough, his native place, to which he had retired after resigning all
94
his preferments in 1658.
63
Coggeshall afforded Owen a more extensive field of usefulness than he
had enjoyed at Fordham. The congregation consisted of nearly two
thousand persons; who were generally sober, religious, and intelligent. A
very intimate and ardent attachment soon took place between him and
them, which was productive of much mutual satisfaction. His ministry
was attended with considerable success; and nothing, probably, but
circumstances which he could not control, would have removed him from
this beloved flock. It was here that he began to act as an Independent or
Congregationalist, by forming a church on the principles of that
profession. Before stating the circumstances which produced Owen’s
connexion with this body of Christians, I trust it will not be deemed a
digression to give a brief sketch of its sentiments, and its history up to the
period of his joining it.
The distinguishing principle of Independency may be expressed in a
single sentence; namely, That a church of Christ is a voluntary society of
Christians, regularly assembling in one place, and with its officers
possessing the full power of government, worship, and discipline in itself.
As a voluntary society no man can, or ought to be compelled to join it; nor
can it be compelled by any external authority to receive, or retain, any
individual in its communion. As a Christian society none are fit to enjoy
its privileges, except those who appear to have believed the truth,
imbibed the spirit, and submitted to the authority of Christ. To admit
persons of a different description, must tend to defeat the object of its
association, which is entirely of a spiritual nature, and to introduce
corruption and disorder. It is a regular, and not an ambulatory or
occasional assembly.
64
For conducting its spiritual offices, bishops or pastors are appointed; and
deacons or servants to manage its few temporal concerns. Without
persons suitably qualified for these duties, and conscientiously
discharging them, its constitution must be imperfect, and all its
procedure will be marked with irregularity and disorder. It has the power
of conducting its worship in such a manner as may, consistently with the
Scriptures, most tend to general edification. In its government and
discipline, it is accountable to the Great Head of the church, but not to
any other tribunal. This view of the character and constitution of a
church, it is presumed, is characterised by that simplicity which
distinguishes every arrangement in the kingdom of Christ; it is adapted to
the endlessly diversified circumstances in which Christianity may be
placed in the world; it answers every purpose of religious association; and
it is supported by the general principles, the particular precepts, or the
recorded example of the apostles and primitive believers. A society of this
description can be managed only by the authority of the word of God,
cannot be compelled to receive the commandments of men for doctrines,
and can never allow alliance with or incorporation into a temporal
kingdom. It is our object to state, not to advocate at present, the
95
principles of Independency. Among its friends, there have been
diversities of judgment on minor points, but every consistent
Independent has held substantially the sentiments expressed above.
65
Others, as well as Independents, have successfully shown that this was
the constitution of the primitive churches for at least the two first
96
centuries of the Christian era. It appears gradually to have merged in a
species of Episcopacy, and was finally swallowed up with everything
valuable in Christianity, in the vortex of papal abomination. The
constitution of the church was among the last subjects the Reformers
were likely to study, and from their peculiar circumstances, the one they
were most likely to misunderstand. Believing, as they did, that
Christianity could scarcely exist without state patronage, and that
conscience was the subject of human legislation, the simple form of
Independency was not likely to occur to them; or if it did occur, it would
be speedily rejected as unsuitable to the state of the church, and of the
world.
As far as a name can fasten reproach, it has often been attempted to
render the Independents odious by tracing their origin to Robert Brown
who, after having professed the sentiments of the body, and suffered
grievously for them, returned to the bosom of the Church of England, and
97
died miserably at a very advanced age. Although Brown was, for a time,
a very zealous defender of this form of ecclesiastical polity, there is no
reason for ascribing to him, either the merit or the disgrace of originating
it. Long before he was heard of, perhaps before he was born, there were
persons in England who held and acted on these sentiments as far as was
practicable in their circumstances.
66
Bolton, though not the first in this way, was an elder of a separate church
98
in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s days, Penry says in his address to
Queen Elizabeth, “If we had Queen Mary’s days, I think we would have
been as flourishing a church to this day as ever any; for it is well known
that there were then in London, and elsewhere in exile, more flourishing
99
churches than any tolerated by your authority.” In the year 1567, a
number of persons were imprisoned belonging to a society of about a
100
hundred, who appear to have been of this persuasion. In a speech made
by Sir Walter Raleigh in the House of Commons, 1692, on a law to
transport the Brownists, he observes this: “If two or three thousand
Brownists meet at the sea side, at whose charge will they be transported?
Or where will you send them? I am sorry for it, but I am afraid there are
nearly twenty thousand of them in England. And when they are gone,
101
who will maintain their wives and children?” If their number was such
at this date, they must have been in the country many years before.
The Brownists, as they have been nicknamed, were treated with great
severity both by Churchmen and Non-conformists. They were the first
consistent dissenters from the Church of England, though they
undoubtedly carried some things further than moderate men in moderate
times would approve. There were a few forward fiery spirits among them,
who expressed themselves with too much asperity of others. This
produced discord among themselves, and exposed them to the vengeance
of their adversaries who, with an equal lack of religion and humanity,
gloried over their faults and insulted their misfortunes.
67
In palliation of their real or supposed improprieties, however, much may
be said. They were placed in circumstances entirely new, and had no
experience in the mode of managing the principles they had adopted.
They were surrounded by enemies, whose conduct often tended to
inflame and exasperate, but seldom to enlighten or convince. The evils
they had witnessed and endured in a worldly persecuting hierarchy,
drove them to the furthest length they could go in opposition to it. Some
of them were men of learning, and the body of them were men of
principle who rejoiced to be counted worthy to suffer for the sake of
Christ. The names of Ainsworth, and Canne, and Robinson, will always be
cherished with respect by the lovers of sacred literature. And the souls of
Copping and Thacker, Greenwood and Barrow, Penry and Dennis, are
now before the altar above, for the word of God, and the testimony of
Jesus Christ. Men who suffered the loss of all things for conscience’ sake,
and who loved not their lives unto death, should not be wantonly
reproached. It especially ill becomes those who belong to a community
which arose out of the ashes of Brownism, and which profited by its
mistakes and its sufferings, to join with others in ridiculing or defaming
it. It should be recollected too, that the chief accounts which we have of
the Brownists are from the pens of their adversaries. Such testimony
should always be received with caution. And when we perceive the
vituperation, indecency, and palpable injustice which prevail in many of
the publications issued against this much-hated sect, we must conclude
that such authorities as Paget and Edwards, and even those of Baillie and
Hall, are not entitled to implicit deference.
68
Such as they were, the principles of this body obtained considerable
publicity before the end of the sixteenth century. A variety of spirited
pamphlets, chiefly anonymous, were published by members of it; and
churches were formed which met mostly in private, till by the Act of 1593,
102
those who survived the effects of dungeons and gibbets, were
condemned to indiscriminate banishment. Most of them retired to
Holland, which was then the land of liberty; and in Rotterdam,
Middleburgh, Leyden, Amsterdam, and Arnheim, they were permitted to
constitute churches according to their own model. There, in 1596, they
published a Confession of their Faith, in Latin and English, and
addressed it to the Continental and British Universities. Their conduct in
Holland seems to have been in general very exemplary, till most of them
moved to New England, and founded that flourishing colony into which
they introduced those enlightened principles of religious liberty which
have obtained so firm an establishment in America.
Mr. John Robinson, who was educated at Cambridge, and beneficed near
Yarmouth, with some of his people, renounced their connexion with the
Church of England, and moved to Holland where he became pastor of the
Congregational Church at Leyden, about 1609. So great was the number
of English exiles at this place, that the church at one time consisted of
three hundred members. According to the testimony of friends and
enemies, Robinson was a learned, amiable, and devoted servant of Christ;
and the church under him seems to have merited and enjoyed a high
103
Christian character.
69
While Robinson was at Leyden, Mr. Henry Jacob, another English exile,
of eminent learning and talents, was pastor of the church at Middleburgh.
These two excellent men were assisted by the celebrated Dr. William
Ames, better known by his Latin name, Amesius. With distinguished
reputation, he had filled the Divinity Chair of Franeker for many years.
Afterwards he became joint pastor of the Congregational Church at
Rotterdam, and colleague to the unfortunate Hugh Peters. These men
adopted those views of fellowship and Government which have since
 104
distinguished the body of British Independents.
Various circumstances concurred to induce Mr. Jacob to return to his
native country about 1616, where he immediately set about forming a
Church in London, on Congregational principles. This is generally
thought to have been the first Church of this description in England; but
Edwards asserts that the Church at Duckenfield, in Cheshire, was formed
before any of the exiles came over from Holland. When we reflect how
extensively these principles were disseminated throughout England, it is
probable that in many parts of it there were persons ready to embrace the
first opportunity of reducing to practice the sentiments which they had
previously received.
It may well be supposed that the progress of the Independent Churches
during the despotic reigns of James and Charles, must have been very
slow. In general, they were obliged to meet privately; and even then, they
were liable to frequent and violent interruptions. Mr. Jacob’s church in
London, however, seems to have enjoyed a continuity of existence
through most of this period, and was favoured with the labours of a
succession of excellent men. Mr. Jacob himself continued pastor till 1621,
when, with the consent of the Church, he moved to Virginia.
70
He was succeeded by Mr. John Lathorp, who remained pastor till 1636,
when the oppressions of the times drove him and a number of the church,
to take refuge in America. His successor was Mr. Henry Jessey, who
105
continued in office till the time of which we are now writing.
Various causes combined after 1640 to promote the increase and
respectability of the Independent body throughout England. The state of
the country became favourable to freedom of inquiry on religious
subjects. A very general disgust prevailed towards established
Episcopacy, which had been long excited by the conduct both of the
church and the court. Respect for old established forms and received
opinions rapidly gave way; and the minds of men received an impulse,
which in many instances no doubt, led to error and extravagance. But on
the whole, it was favourable to the progress of truth. The influence of
error is never so destructive as when its subjects are in a state of torpor
and unconcern. The wildness of fanaticism, and the uproar of
persecution, are not so unfavourable to the march of knowledge, as the
gloomy security of a bigoted superstition. In the one case, some good will
appear amidst much evil; in the other case, the whole mass is sunk in
hopeless and deathlike apathy.
The return, at this time, of many individuals from Holland, where they
had long been exiled on account of their religious sentiments, excited
attention to Congregational principles. Many of those who had left
England chiefly from dissatisfaction with the forms and spirit of
Episcopacy, had become Independents in Holland.
71
This change had been effected not so much by the zeal of the party
previously settled there, as by the opportunity afforded during their
residence in that country, to study the Scriptures unbiased by the
influence of an established system, and freed from all temptations of a
worldly nature. Such at least is the account given of their change by
Goodwin, Nye, Burroughs, Simpson, and Bridge, in their celebrated
106
Apologetical Narrative, presented to the Westminster Assembly. The
return of such persons, and their influence among their former friends
and flocks, must have created a considerable sensation.
By this time too, the Congregational cause had obtained a firm footing in
New England, and churches there were growing up and flourishing under
its auspices. American pamphlets were imported, which disseminated the
sentiments of the churches in that quarter. Thus the heresy, which had
been expelled from England, returned with the increased strength of a
transatlantic cultivation, and the publications of Cotton and Hooker,
Norton and Mather, were circulated throughout England, and during this
writing and disputing period, produced a mighty effect.
Another thing which contributed greatly to the spread of Independency
was the meeting and transactions of the Westminster Assembly. This
celebrated body met by appointment of Parliament on the first of July
1648, and continued to meet with more or less regularity till the twenty-
second of February 1648-9, having held eleven hundred and sixty-three
sessions during that time. It consisted of a number of Ministers and
Laymen of various descriptions, chosen by Parliament to assist it, by
counsel and advice, but invested with no power or authority.
72
It was nearly of one mind on doctrinal subjects; but of very different
sentiments on church government and discipline. Some were decided
107
Episcopalians; a few were Erastians, or men of no fixed sentiments on
these subjects. At the beginning, the body was moderate Conformists; but
pushed on by the Scotch Commissioners, they would at last be satisfied
with nothing short of the Divine right of Presbytery, and a Covenanted
uniformity. Ten or eleven members were wholly or partially
108
Independents. The character of the Assembly has been variously
represented. Without any question, it comprised a large portion of
religion and learning; yet its proceedings were often marked with those
imperfections which uniformly attach to all Assemblies of uninspired
men. The debates which occurred in this body on the subject of
government and discipline, called forth the strength both of the
Presbyterians and the Independents on all the leading questions in which
the two systems differ. Many and long were the discussions which took
place, both in writing and by speech. As might be expected, the
Independents were invariably out-voted; but it will not be supposed that
an Independent would admit that they were out-reasoned.
73
The leaders of the Independent party were men of as profound learning,
talents, and piety as any of whom the opposite side could boast; and their
invincible patience, considering the opposition they had to encounter,
deserves to be honourably mentioned. Truth never suffers from
discussion. The publication of the Assembly’s debates, and the pamphlets
which they occasioned, diffused information on the disputed points, and
increased the number of dissenters from Presbytery and Episcopacy.
Whatever is due to these causes, it would be wrong to ascribe the
progress of Independency entirely to their influence. There was another
— the most important of the whole. But in stating this, I must borrow the
words of others, to escape the charge of partiality. “The rapid progress of
the Independents,” says the impartial Mosheim, “was no doubt owing to a
variety of causes; among which justice obliges us to reckon the learning of
109
their teachers, and the regularity and sanctity of their manners.” This
candid admission of Mosheim is corroborated by the testimony of Baxter,
who was very far from being a friend to Independency. “I saw,” he says,
“that most of them were zealous, and very many learned, discreet and
godly men, and fit to be very serviceable in the Church. — Also, I saw a
commendable care of serious holiness and discipline in most of the
 110
Independent Churches.”
Such were some of the causes which promoted the increase and
respectability of this body, shortly before Owen connected himself with it.
It was neither its number nor its respectability, however, which produced
his adoption of its sentiments, as will immediately appear. The following
account is given by Baillie of its state in 1646, the very time at which
Owen joined it.
74
It partakes of the colouring of that writer’s party prejudices; but is on the
whole by no means discreditable to the Independents, though he ascribes
to political management, what may be more easily accounted for from the
operation of the causes already enumerated.
“Of all the bypaths in which the wanderers of our time are pleased to walk, this is the most
considerable; not for the number, but for the quality of the erring persons. There are few of the
noted sects which are not a great deal more numerous; but what this way lacks in number, it
supplies by the weight of its followers. After five years’ endeavours and great industry, within the
lines of the city’s communication, they are said to as yet consist of much within one thousand
persons — men, women, and all who to this day have put themselves in any known congregation
being reckoned of that way. But setting aside number for other respects, they are of so eminent a
condition, that not any nor all the rest of the sects are comparable to them. For they have been
so wise as to engage to their party some of the chief noted in both houses of Parliament, in the
Assembly of divines, in the Army, in the city and country committees; all of whom they daily
manage with such dexterity and diligence for the benefit of their cause, that the eyes of the world
111
begin to fall upon them more than upon all their fellows.”
“Contrary to the progress of other sects,” says a Scotch Historian, “the
Independent system was first addressed, and apparently recommended
by its tolerating principles, to the higher orders of social life. It was in the
progressive state of the sect, when in danger from the persecuting Spirit
of the Presbyterians, that it descended to the lower classes of the
112
community, where other sectaries begin their career.”
75
The Presbyterian interest was rather declining about this time. This arose
chiefly from its extreme violence and inveterate hostility to the toleration
of all other parties. The people of England were not generally prepared to
enforce the uniformity for which it contended; and as nothing else would
satisfy, the whole of the other sects agreed and united to resist it, however
they differed from each other. As the Presbyterian cause declined, that of
the Independents rose — till in the end, the former, struggling for power,
entirely lost its influence; and the latter, seeking existence, acquired
ascendency.
The progress of Owen’s mind on the subject of Church Government has
already been noted. For a time he appears to have hesitated between
Presbytery and Independency. It fortunately happens that we can give an
account of the circumstances which led to his decided adoption of the
latter system in his own words. The following passage is peculiarly
important.
“Not long after [the publication of his Duties of Pastor and People] I set myself seriously to
inquire into the controversies then hotly agitated in these nations. I was not acquainted with any
one person, minister or other of the Congregational way; nor had I to my knowledge seen any
more than one in my life.
76
My acquaintance lay wholly with ministers and people of the Presbyterian way. But sundry
books being published on either side, I perused and compared them with the Scriptures and
with one another, as I received ability from God. After a general view of them, as was my manner
in other controversies, I fixed on one to take under particular consideration, which seemed most
methodically and strongly to maintain what was contrary, as I thought, to my present
persuasion. This was Mr. Cotton’s book ‘Of the Keys.’ I engaged in the examination and
confutation of it, merely for my own satisfaction, with what diligence and sincerity I was able.
What progress I made in that undertaking I can manifest to anyone by the discourses on that
113
subject, and criticisms on that book, yet abiding by me. In the pursuit and management of
this work, quite beside and contrary to my expectations at a time in which I could expect
nothing on that account but ruin in this world, without the knowledge, or advice of, or
conference with any one person of that judgement, I was prevailed on to receive those
principles which I thought I had set myself in opposition to. And indeed, this way of impartially
examining all things by the word, comparing causes with causes, and things with things, laying
aside all prejudiced respects to persons or present traditions, is a course that I would admonish
114
all to beware of, who would avoid the danger of being made Independents.”
In answer to Cawdry’s charges of inconsistency, he expresses himself on
this subject again, as follows:
77
“Be it here declared then, that at one time I apprehended the Presbyterial, Synodical
Government of Churches, as fit to be received and walked in (when I did not know if it aligned
with those principles which I had taken up, upon my best inquiry into the word of God). I now
profess myself to be satisfied that I was then under a mistake; and I do now own, and I have for
115
many years lived in, the way and practice of what is called Congregational.”
This language requires no comment; it is a manly and explicit avowal of
his change of sentiment, and a candid explanation of the circumstances
which led to it. Between the years 1644 and 1646, it appears he had been
engaged in examining the constitution and government of the Church.
For some time his mind was undecided; but towards the latter part of the
above period, he fully adopted those views in which he continued
stedfast, and which he from time to time defended till the end of his life. I
have been more particular on this subject, because everything relating to
the progress of such a mind as Owen’s is deserving of attention; because
the facts brought forward show that his change was neither a hasty nor an
interested one, but produced entirely by the force of truth and conviction;
and because he appeared at the head of his brethren of the
Congregational order during the long period of forty years, it became
more necessary to state how he had been led to embrace their sentiments.
As it is also often ignorantly asserted that Owen continued through life a
Presbyterian, justice required that his true sentiments should be
exhibited. It clearly appears from his own words that he was never a
Presbyterian; and that at an early period, he withdrew from all connexion
with that body, from some of whom (as it will afterwards be shown), he
received no small degree of abuse and ill-usage on account of his
secession.
78
The consequence of his change of sentiment was his forming a church at
Coggeshall on Congregational principles, with which he remained till the
commonwealth appointments broke up his connexion — but which has
continued in a flourishing state to the present day.
Soon after the formation of the Church in this place, he published a small
treatise: “Eshcol: or Rules of Direction for the walking of the saints in
fellowship, according to the order of the Gospel,” 1647. It has since gone
through many editions. In the preface, he states four principles as the
basis of his rules, and on which he considered most persons agreed who
were seeking a scriptural reformation:
that particular congregations or assemblies of believers, under
officers of their own, are of Divine institution
that every believer is bound to join himself to some such
congregation
that every man’s voluntary consent is required for his union with
it
and that it is convenient that all believers in one place should,
unless too numerous, form one congregation
Most Presbyterians as well as Independents would agree in these
principles. The same remark is applicable to his rules, which are
purposely so expressed as to avoid occasion for dispute; and so that
Christians of every description may derive benefit from them. His
sentiments as an Independent, however, appear. For in explaining Mat
18.17, he observes “that by church cannot be understood the Elders of the
Church alone, but rather the whole congregation.” It is divided into two
parts: the first on the duty of Members of Churches to their Pastors; and
the second on their duty to one another.
79
The former contains seven rules, and the latter fifteen — all of them
judicious, well supported by Scripture, and calculated to promote, in an
eminent degree, the comfort, edification and usefulness of the Churches
of Christ.
Eschol was followed by a work of deeper learning and research, “Salus
Electorum, Sanguis Jesu; or the death of Death, in the death of Christ: A
treatise of the redemption and reconciliation that is in the blood of Christ,
with the merit thereof, and the satisfaction wrought thereby, etc. by John
Owen, Pastor of the Church of God which is at Coggeshall, in Essex.”
1648, 4to. pp. 333.
This work is dedicated to the Earl of Warwick, the nobleman to whom he
had been indebted for the presentation to Coggeshall: a man of
unimpeachable Christian character and great sweetness of temper; a
valuable and steady friend to the persecuted Puritans, and known before
(and long after) his death by the distinguished designation of The Good
116
Earl of Warwick. It has the attestations of Stanley Gower, and Richard
Byfield, Presbyterian ministers of considerable eminence, and members
of the Westminster Assembly. They both speak of the work in terms of the
highest commendation, though the latter professes to know nothing of
Owen, even by name!
The work is entirely devoted to an examination of one branch of the
Arminian controversy: the nature and extent of the death of Christ. It is a
subject of much importance in itself, and the fruitful source of numerous
and extended discussions.
80
The subject had occupied the attention of Owen for more than seven
years, during which he had examined everything which he could procure
 117
written in former or later times on it. The volume which is the result of
this labour, is distinguished by all that comprehension of thought,
closeness of reasoning, and minuteness of illustration, which mark the
future productions of our author. It is divided into four parts. In the first,
he treats the eternal purpose, and distinct concurrence of the Father, Son,
and Spirit, respecting the work of redemption. In the second, he removes
the false and supposed ends of the death of Christ. The third contains
arguments against universal redemption; and the last answers the
objections of Arminians to particular redemption.
In every part of the work, much important and scriptural sentiment
occurs; but I am disposed to think that Owen is more successful in the
two latter, than in the former parts; in objecting to the sentiments and
language of Arminians, than in placing the doctrine of Scripture, on the
subject which he treats, in its true and simple aspect. There is too much
minute reasoning on the debtor and creditor hypothesis. Forgetting that
if sin is a debt, it is a moral debt, which cannot be discharged by a
payment in kind, but which may be compensated in another way, deemed
suitable and satisfactory by the offended party. The atonement of Christ
is a glorious expedient devised by infinite wisdom and mercy, to remedy
the disorders that have taken place in God’s moral government; to justify
his ways to men; to open the channel of mercy; to maintain the honours
of justice; to magnify the Lawgiver; and to glorify the Saviour.
81
Some Calvinists maintain that the sacrifice of Christ is, in its nature as
well as design, limited to the elect — to procure the removal of their
transgressions, and to obtain spiritual blessings for them alone.
Arminians, on the other hand, maintain that the atonement of Christ, in
its nature as well as its intention, extends to all; and that it is chiefly
designed to put all mankind into a state capable of being saved. On both
sides, there seems to be a confounding of the death of Christ with the
purpose of God respecting its extent. The sovereign intention of God in
regard to the application of the atonement, is surely a thing distinct from
the atonement itself — though in the Divine plan, it is closely connected
with it. The same remedy would have been necessary for the salvation of
one sinner if God had so restricted its application; while in its own
nature, it is sufficient to save a thousand worlds, if Jehovah was so
pleased to extend and apply it. The sufficiency and suitableness of the
remedy, arise from the fact that Christ is worthy, the one for whose sake
the Father forgives and restores to favour the offending rebel. Such is the
nature of sin that nothing less than a testimony of infinite displeasure
against it, would justify the Lawgiver in showing mercy to one
transgression of even one offender. Such is the infinite worth of the
sacrifice, arising from the divine character of the sufferer, that it is
enough to purge away the transgressions of all who believe.
Inattention on the part of many Calvinists to the glorious sufficiency of
the atonement, has led to the wildest Antinomianism; while overlooking
the sovereign limitation of it, or its applied efficiency, has led Arminians
to an equally objectionable Neonomianism — or to ascribe salvation not
so much to the death of Christ, as to the sinner’s obedience to a new law,
which he is enabled to obey by being put into a salvable state, through the
work of Christ.
82
The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort, appear to me to have stated the
subject very correctly when they say:
“Christ’s satisfaction is of infinite value and price — abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of
all the world. But the declaration of the gospel is that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall
not perish, but have eternal life. This declaration should be promiscuously and indiscriminately
announced to all men to whom God, of his good pleasure, sends the gospel; and it is to be
received by faith and repentance. But the fact that many who are invited by the gospel, neither
repent nor believe, but perish in infidelity, arises from no defect or insufficiency in the oblation
118
of Christ on the cross, but is entirely their own fault.”
The following passage of Owen’s work fully coincides with these views:
“It was the purpose of God that his Son should offer a sacrifice of infinite worth and dignity,
sufficient in itself for redeeming all and every man, if it had pleased the Lord to employ it to that
purpose; yes, and of other worlds also, if the Lord were to freely make them and redeem them.
This is its own true internal perfection and sufficiency. That it should be applied to any, made a
price for them, and become beneficial to them, is external to it, does not arise from it, but
119
merely depends on the intention and will of God”
He proceeds to show that on this ground the gospel ought to be preached
to every creature:
“Because the way of salvation which it declares is wide enough for all to walk in. There is enough
in the remedy it brings to light, to heal all their diseases, to deliver them from all their evils.
83
If there were a thousand worlds, the gospel might on this ground be preached to them all, if they
will only believe in him, which is the only way to draw refreshment from this fountain of
 120
salvation.”

If these views of redemption were strictly adhered to, which I do not

think is done even by Owen himself in this very work, the controversy
concerning its extent would be reduced within very narrow limits. The
principle on which men are called to believe the gospel, is not God’s
decree of election — not that Christ has died for them — but the revealed
sufficiency of the atonement for all who believe the testimony respecting
it. This is unaffected by any decree of God, and it remains unalterably
true whether men believe it or not.
Those who would understand the nature of the debate on this subject at
an early period, will do well to read the “Salus Electorum” of Owen. But
those who wish to see the modern state of the question, will find in the
masterly reasonings of Dr. Williams in his work on Equity and
Sovereignty, and in his Defence of Modern Calvinism, the ablest defence
of the views of that part of the Calvinistic scheme which are now generally
adopted.
In the course of this work, Owen frequently replies to the language of a
treatise on the “Universality of Free Grace,” by a Thomas More, who
appears to have been an illiterate person; and I suppose the same one
whom Edwards describes as “a great sectary, who did much hurt in
Lincolnshire, Norfolk, and Cambridgeshire; who was also famous in
Boston, Lynn, and even Holland; and who was followed from place to
121
place by many.”
84
At the end of the volume also is a short appendix, by way of answer to an
undescribed work of Mr. Joshua Sprigge. This gentleman was educated at
Oxford, and graduated M. A. at Edinburgh. He must have been a person
of some note, as in 1673 he married the widow of Lord Say. He was the
author of various works, both political and theological; but I have not
122
ascertained which of them Owen refers to in his appendix.
An answer to this work was published by Mr. John Home, 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, in answer to a Treatise
on that subject, by Mr. John Owen, 1650, 4to. pp. 318. The author was
minister at Lynn in Norfolk, from which he was ejected in 1662. He was
an Arminian on the subject of Redemption, but not on some of the other
points, and is said to have been a holy, excellent man. He wrote a variety,
123
chiefly of controversial pieces, of which a long list is given by Palmer.
This reply to Owen treats him very respectfully. In the preface, he says
that he chose to reply to his work rather than any other, on account of
Owen’s reputation for ingenuity and learning, in which he acknowledges
that time, opportunity and diligence, had given him much advantage. He
takes up the work chapter by chapter, and discovers some portion both of
learning and acuteness. His arguments are generally the same with those
of other Arminians, while he yet seems to differ from them on the
subjects of grace and election. Some of his remarks and interpretations of
Scripture were not unworthy of Owen’s attention. However, he thought
differently, for he thus speaks of his opponent: “For Mr. Home’s book, I
suppose you are not acquainted with it; if I could have met with any
uninterested person who said it deserved a reply, it would not have lain
124
so long unanswered.”
85
Colchester was, about this time, besieged by the Parliamentary army; and
Lord Fairfax, the general, had his headquarters at Coggeshall. He thus
became acquainted with Owen, who appears to have acted as chaplain to
125
him for a time. Fairfax was then considered the head of the
Presbyterian party. But it appears from the Memoirs of Colonel
126
Hutchinson, that he was an Independent at bottom — though he
allowed himself to be overruled by his wife at home, as he was by
Cromwell in the council. Owen appears to have had a high opinion of his
religious character. Even Hume says of him, “He was equally eminent for
courage and for humanity; and though strongly infected with prejudices
or principles derived from party zeal, in the course of his public conduct,
he never seems to have been diverted by private interest or ambition,
127
from adhering strictly to those principles.”
Owen preached two sermons, one to the army at Colchester on a day of
thanksgiving — on account of its surrender; the other was preached at
Rumford, to the Parliament’s Committee, which had been imprisoned —
it was occasioned by their deliverance. Afterwards he published these
together, as they were preached from the same passage, Habakkuk 1.1-9.
He prefixed two dedications: one to Lord Fairfax, and the other to the
Committee and some of the Parliament’s officers.
86
He designated them, “A memorial of the deliverance of Essex county and
Committee.” In these discourses are some strong statements about the
impropriety, and iniquity of human interference with religion.
“Arguments for persecution,” he says, “have been dyed in the blood of
Christians for a long season; ever since the dragon gave his power to the
false prophet, they have all died as heretics and schismatics. Suppose you
saw, in one view, all the blood of the witnesses which has been let out of
their veins on false pretences; suppose that you heard in one noise, the
doleful cry of all pastorless churches, dying martyrs, harbourless children
of parents inheriting the promises, wilderness wandering saints,
dungeoned believers — perhaps, it would make your spirits tender as to
128
this point.”
There are some passages which seem to encourage more of a warlike
spirit than I think quite justifiable on Christian principles. To stir up men
to defend or fight for the privileges which Christ has bestowed on his
church, is a violation both of the letter and the spirit of his word. To view
religious rights as civil privileges, and to maintain the lawfulness of
defending them on this ground, is quite a different matter. Christianity
justifies no man, as a Christian, in fighting for anything connected with it;
but it is perfectly consistent with its principles to defend what belongs to
us as men, or as natives of a country whose constitution secures the
enjoyment of Christian or of civil privileges. It bestows no particular
rights or immunities of a civil nature on its professors; on the other hand,
it deprives no rights of which they may be previously possessed.
87
One of these warlike passages which has given much offence, and of
which a very unfair use has been made, is the following. After noting that
former mercies and deliverances, thankfully remembered, strengthen
faith and prevent despondency, he exclaims:
“Where is the God of Marstone moor, and the God of Naseby! This is an acceptable
expostulation in a gloomy day. Oh! what a catalogue of mercies this nation has to plead in a time
of trouble! God came from Naseby, and the Holy One from the west! His glory covered the
heavens, and the earth was full of his praise. He went forth in the north, and he did not withhold
his hand in the east. The poor town in which I live is more enriched with a store of mercies in a
few months, than with a full trade of many years,” etc.
This passage is quoted by L’ Estrange as a proof that Owen was one of
those fanatics who believed that success was an evidence of the goodness
 129
of a cause. Dr. Grey also, commenting on a passage of Hudibras,
130
affirms on the same ground, that Owen was of this sentiment. But this
is a gross perversion of his meaning. It is a mere rhetorical application of
the words of Scripture, with the design of impressing the importance of
remembering past mercies and deliverances.
However, as the sentiment that success is an evidence of Divine approval
has often been imputed to Owen and the party with which he acted, it is
important that we can produce his own reply to the charge.
88
“A cause is good or bad, before it has success one way or other; and that which does not have its
warrant in itself, can never obtain any from its success. The rule of the goodness of any public
cause, is the eternal law of reason, with the just legal rights and interests of men. If these do not
make a cause good, success will never mend it. But when a cause on these grounds is indeed
good, or is really judged such by those who are engaged in it, not to take notice of the providence
of God in prospering men in the pursuit of it, is to exclude all thoughts of Him and His
providence from having any concern in the government of the world. And if I, or any other, have
at any time applied this to any cause that is not warranted by the only rule of its justification, it
in no way reflects on the truth of the principle which I assert; nor does it give countenance to the
131
false one which he ascribes to me.”
If this quotation does not satisfy the reader that Owen, and I might add
most of the men who acted with him, never held the absurd and impious
sentiment ascribed to him, he must be unreasonably sceptical. Owen, no
doubt, had the same views as Paul, of the character of those who do evil
132
so that good may come; of whom even a heathen poet tolerably
expresses his dislike:
“Careat successibus opto;
Quisquis ab eventu facta notanda putat.” — Ovid.

 CHAPTER IV.
Owen preaches before Parliament on the day after the execution of Charles I. — The Independents
not guilty of putting the King to death — Testimonies on this subject — Remarks on Owen’s
Sermon — Charges against it — Essay on Toleration annexed to it — Doctrine of Religious Liberty
owes its origin to Independents — Writers on this subject — Brownists and Baptists — Jeremy
Taylor — Owen — Vane — Milton — Locke — Cook’s account of the origin of Toleration among the
Independents — A different account of it — Smith and Hume — Neal — Owen preaches again
before Parliament — His first acquaintance with Cromwell — Is persuaded to accompany him to
Ireland.
On the thirty-first of January, 1649, Owen was called to preach before
Parliament, on the most trying occasion on which he ever appeared
before that assembly: this was the day after the decapitation of Charles I.
A lengthened discussion respecting the causes which produced, and the
persons who were engaged in this dismal affair, would be foreign from
the design of this work. But as the religious party with which Owen acted
has received a large portion of the blame for this transaction, it cannot be
deemed improper to show that it has been greatly wronged in this. That
any body of religious persons should be guilty of such lawless and
unjustifiable procedure, would be sufficient to brand it with deserved and
indelible disgrace. But a little acquaintance with the true state of things
will evince that no religious sect can justly be charged with the crime of
putting the king to death.
90
The parties immediately concerned in this tragical scene, were the array,
the parliament, and the high court of justice. The army was a collection of
all the fierce republican spirits which had been produced by the anarchy,
the excitement, and the success of the preceding years. It comprehended
a great number of religious persons belonging to various professions, and
many of no definite profession whatever — those who might pretend to
religion, but in reality, fought for revolution and plunder. In it there were
Presbyterians, and Independents (properly so called); and under the
latter designation, there was a crowd of anomalous fanatics who took
refuge in the general name and respectable character of the
Congregational body. There were Baptists and Fifth Monarchy men,
Seekers and Antinomians, Levellers and Ranters,
133
“All monstrous, all prodigious things.”
Cromwell and his officers ruled the army and, as it suited their purpose,
sometimes provoked its religious feelings, and at other times on its
revolutionary frenzy. They can be considered as belonging decidedly to no
religious body; though they naturally favoured the Independent rather
than any other, as from its principles, they could more easily manage it in
political matters.
The Parliament, by the numerous changes it had undergone, was reduced
134
to a mere caput mortuum by the army. After Colonel Pride’s purge,
“none were allowed to enter it,” says Hume, “but the most furious and
determined of the Independents, and these did not exceed the number of
fifty or sixty.” Hume never distinguishes between the civil and the
religious Independents, nor would it have suited either his political or his
religious creed to do so. Some of the persons composing the Rump
Parliament were no doubt connected with the religious body known by
this name, and to such men as Colonel Hutchinson.
91
However much we may think they erred, it will not be easy to deny the
claim of religious character. But many of them, we know, never
considered themselves Independents, nor were they considered so by
others — nor can it be shown that any considerable number of them were
so.
“’Tis certain to a demonstration, that there were men of all parties then left in the house —
Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, and others — so little foundation is
135
there for the conclusion that Independents, and these only, put the king to death.”
The same remarks are equally applicable to the high court of justice
which, being composed chiefly of officers of the army and members of the
commons, partook of their respective characters. Few of the individuals
who composed it, so far as I can discover, ever ranked under the banner
136
of the Congregational body. The testimonies of Whitelocke, Wellwood,
Du Moulin, Baxter, Burnet, and of the Convention Parliament itself
(which restored Charles II), support the views now given. The reader will
137
find the substance of these collected in Neal, who justly observes that
the violent writers on the other side, “constantly confound the
Independents with the army, which was made up of a number of
sectaries, the majority of whom were not of that distinguishing
138
character.” As Neal’s testimony, however, may be unjustly supposed to
be influenced by partiality, it is gratifying to be able to adduce the
language of a writer who is far removed from all suspicion of this kind,
and whose opinion on this (as on most other subjects of ecclesiastical
history), is entitled to the highest respect. Says the candid and impartial
Mosheim,
92
“I am well aware that many of the most eminent and respectable English writers have given the
Independents the denomination of Regicides; and if, by the term Independents, they mean those
licentious republicans whose dislike of a monarchical form of government carried them to the
most pernicious and extravagant lengths, then I grant that this denomination is well applied.
But if, by the term Independents, we are to understand a religious sect, the ancestors of those
who still bear the same title in England, it appears very questionable to me whether the unhappy
fate of the worthy prince above-mentioned, ought to be imputed entirely to that set of men.
Those who affirm that the Independents were the only authors of the death of King Charles,
must mean one of these two things: either that the Regicides were animated and set on by the
seditious doctrines of that sect, and the violent suggestions of its members; or that all who were
concerned in this atrocious deed were themselves Independents, zealously attached to the
religious community now under consideration. Now, it may be proved with the clearest evidence
that neither of these was the case. There is nothing in the doctrines of this sect, so far as they are
known to me, that seems in the least adapted to incite men to such a horrid deed; nor does it
appear from the history of these times that the Independents were a whit more exasperated
against Charles, than the Presbyterians were. And as to the latter supposition, it is far from
being true that all those who were concerned in bringing this unfortunate prince to the scaffold
were Independents; since we learn from the best English writers, and from the public
declarations of Charles II., that this violent faction was composed of persons of different
sects. That there were Independents among them may be easily
139
conceived.”
93
The subsequent reasonings of this historian respecting the distinction
between the civil and religious Independents, are also highly important,
but too long to be quoted here. Though in a note, his translator Maclaine
endeavours to shake the force of his reasonings, what he says amounts to
very little, as the facts of the case are all on the side of Mosheim. Eachard
and Bates (the physician) both observe that several of the Independents
joined with the Presbyterians in declaring against the design of putting
the king to death — in their sermons from the pulpit, in conferences,
140
monitory letters, petitions, protestations, and public remonstrances.
None of their ministers expressed their approval of it, except Hugh
Peters, and John Goodwin, neither of whom has strong claims to be
considered as belonging to the regular body of Independents; not the
former on account of his fanaticism, nor the latter on account of his
Arminianism. It also deserves to be noticed that few of the religious
Independents suffered after the restoration on account of their real or
supposed connexion with the death or Charles.
In stating these things to vindicate the Independents from the calumnies
which have been heaped upon them, I consider myself to be doing a
service to religion in general, which always suffers when its professors are
reproached. The real causes of the king’s death are not to be found in the
principles or members of any religious body; but are to be traced, most
probably, to the duplicity and fickleness of Charles himself — to the
unconstitutional and despotic principles perpetually instilled into his
mind by his immediate attendants and confidential friends; and to the
perilous circumstances of the democratic leaders, who had gone too far to
recede, and were driven to this desperate stroke for their own salvation.
94
With some it may be enough to involve Owen in the guilt of the Regicides,
that he was employed by them to preach on such an occasion, as the day
after the king’s death. The apology made by him in regard to another
affair is perhaps quite as applicable here. His superiors were persons
“whose commands were not to be questioned.” They were aware of the
importance of having their conduct sanctioned, even in appearance, by a
preacher of Owen’s respectability, and on this account, it is probable that
he was chosen to discharge a function which it is impossible to suppose
he would have coveted. Perhaps they expected he would defend or
apologize for their measures. If they did, they must have been grievously
disappointed, as the discourse maintains a profound and studied silence
on the awful transaction of the preceding day. It is founded on Jer. 15.19,
20. It was published with the title, “Righteous zeal encouraged by Divine
protection,” from which a direct application to the recent events might be
expected. Extremely little of this occurs, however. The text and context
were both very suitable to the circumstances of the country, and in a
general way, he uses them for this purpose. But he is exceedingly cautious
of committing himself by expressing an opinion either of the court, or of
the country party. This plainly implies that, while he was not at liberty to
condemn, he was unwilling to justify. He tells the Parliament very
faithfully that, “much of the evil which had come upon the country, had
originated within their own walls;” and he warns them against
“oppression, self-seeking, and contrivances for persecution.”
95
Mr. Asty speaking of this discourse remarks: —
 “He appeared before a numerous assembly; it was a critical juncture, and he was not ignorant of
the tempers of his principal hearers; he was then a rising man, and to justify the late action was
the infallible road to preferment. But his discourse was so modest and inoffensive, that his
friends could take no just exception to it, nor his enemies take advantage of his words another
141
day.”
This last observation is not quite correct. For this discourse occasioned to
its author a large portion of abuse and misrepresentation. Dr. Grey, in his
examination of Neal’s history, endeavours to show from this sermon, that
Owen approved of the death of the king. For this purpose two passages
are detached from their connexion — and so that nothing may be lacking
to fix the guilt of the preacher, words are printed in italics as emphatic,
on which he never intended any emphasis should be laid. Grey shall have
the full benefit of the alleged evidence without note or comment from me.
“The famed Dr. John Owen, in a sermon preached the day after the king’s murder, has the
following remarkable passages, which I think plainly reveal his approval of that execrable
parricide. ‘As the flaming sword,’ he says, ‘turns every way, so God can turn it into every thing.
To those who cry, give me a king, God can give him in his anger; and from those who cry take
him away, He can take him away in his wrath. — When kings turn seducers, they seldom lack a
good store of followers. Now, if the blind lead the blind, they shall both fall into the ditch. When
kings command unrighteous things, and the people suit them with willing compliance, none
142
doubts that the destruction of them both is just and righteous.”
96
He must be desperately prejudiced against Owen, indeed, who does not
see that this language bears as hard on the people as on the ill-fated king;
and had I been disposed to quote passages to show that Owen
disapproved of the death of Charles, 1 should have selected these as well
suited for this purpose.
Grey, in the passage we have now quoted, merely follows the steps of
Anthony Wood, who prefers the same charges against Owen’s sermon,
and on the same grounds. He only goes a little further, and says that
Owen “applauded the regicides, and declared the death of that most
143
admirable king to be just and righteous.” Wood himself was in this, as
in several other instances of his abuse of Owen, the servile copyist of
Vernon; whose vile anonymous libel is the storehouse out of which all the
future defamers of Owen supplied themselves with accusations both in
144
matter and form.
To sum up the whole, the University of Oxford, on the twenty-first of
July, 1683, in the fervour of its zeal and loyalty, condemned the positions
of this sermon as pernicious and damnable, and ordered them to be burnt
by the Marshal in the school quadrangle before the members of the
145
University. This act of cowardly revenge on a man whose learning,
moderation and piety had once graced their highest honours, took place
within a month of his death; when he must have been insensible alike to
their praise or their contumely. It was well that their power was then
feebler than their inclinations, or they would probably have substituted
146
the author in place of his writings.
97
But what renders this discourse peculiarly valuable, is the Essay on
toleration annexed to it. Owen had thought long and deeply on this
subject, and he now published the fruit of his deliberations; — not when
he and his party were struggling for existence, but when they had
obtained in great measure the protection and support of the supreme
power. As this is a subject of vast importance, and as I consider the most
enlightened views of religious liberty to have originated with the
Congregationalists, I hope to be excused for entering into some detail
upon it.
The right of man to think for himself on the subject of religion, to act
according to his convictions, and to use every lawful means for promoting
his sentiments among others, was neither understood nor enjoyed in any
heathen country at the beginning of the gospel. Intercommunity of
worship was the utmost extent of Pagan liberality; but this was a very
different thing from religious liberty. Properly, it was permission to unite
or agree, rather than liberty to differ. The foreigner was perhaps allowed
to practise in private the rites of his own faith — but to publicly profess
dissent from the established superstition, and to attempt to introduce a
new faith, or the worship of “strange gods,” were universally held to be
crimes justly punishable by the judges.
98
On this account, notwithstanding all the professed indifference of
heathenism to religious worships and opinions, Christianity experienced
the utmost rage and fury of intolerance. Its disciples refused to unite the
service of Jesus with that of Mars or Jupiter. And turning from these
dumb idols themselves, they also sought to turn others away from them.
Hence, it was spoken of as “a new and mischievous superstition;” its
followers were branded as Atheists in respect to the gods, and incited
with hatred in respect to men. Their persevering adherence to the cause
which they believed to be Divine, was considered merely a sullen
obstinacy, deserving only the severest punishment. The simple
147
declaration in the presence of a judge, “Christiatius sum” was deemed
quite sufficient to justify being sent immediately to the lions, or the block.
But indeed, while civil liberty was so little understood as it was in the
most celebrated states of the ancient world, it would have been strange if
the rights of conscience had been respected.
Unhappily, when Christianity acquired the ascendency, and became
blended with secular power, its mistaken or pretended friends adopted
and acted on the same pernicious principles, and directed their operation
either against idolators, or against the heretical schismatics from their
own belief. It is truly deplorable to think of the Christian blood that was
shed by men calling themselves Christians. During the entire reign of
Papal darkness and tyranny, intolerance was displayed in awful scenes of
devastation and carnage; the blood of saints intoxicated the scarlet-
148
coloured whore, and cried for vengeance against her before the altar of
God. The Reformation, which brought relief from many evils, did not
altogether remove this.
99
None of the first Reformers seem to have understood the principles of
religious liberty. They inconsistently advocated a right for themselves, the
exercise of which they denied to others. All the Protestant governments
held the lawfulness and necessity of punishing heretics and idolators; and
among crimes against the State, they ranked dissent from the established
faith. Henry VIII indiscriminately put to death Papists and Protestants
who denied his supremacy. Edward VI, urged on by Cranmer, drenched
his hands in innocent blood on account of religion. And Elizabeth in
numerous instances followed the unhallowed example of her father. At
Geneva, sedition and heresy were interchangeable terms; and those who
did not submit to the discipline of the church were subjected to civil
excision, and deprived of their rights as citizens.
The great body of British Puritans, after all they had suffered from it,
were far from seeing the evil of persecution. Most of them appear to have
believed in the lawfulness of supporting the true religion by coercive and
restraining measures. The first correct views of religious liberty are to be
ascribed to the Brownists. From them, and from the Baptist and Paedo-
baptist Independents who sprung from them, came everything that
appeared on this topic for many years. In the year 1614, one of those
people, Leonard Busher, presented to king James and Parliament,
“Religion’s Peace, or a Plea for Liberty of Conscience.” The leading object
of this treatise is to show that the true way to make a nation happy is “to
give liberty to all, to serve God as they are persuaded is most agreeable to
his word — to speak, write, and print peaceably, and without molestation,
in behalf of their several tenets and ways of worship.”
100
This valuable tract contains the most scriptural and enlightened views of
religious liberty. It exposes in a series of seventeen arguments, the
iniquity and impolicy of persecution; and in the most moving manner, it
invokes the king and Parliament to grant the inestimable blessing of
toleration. Robinson’s “Justification of separation from the Church of
England,” published in 1639, contains the most accurate statements on
the distinct provinces of civil and spiritual authority. The same remark is
applicable to an anonymous pamphlet, by some Brownist in 1644,
entitled “Queries of Highest Consideration,” presented to the Dissenting
Brethren, and the Westminster Assembly. Burton’s “Vindication of the
Churches commonly called Independent,” also produced in 1644, shows
that “the Magistrate must punish evil actions, but has no power over the
conscience of anyone — to punish a man for that — so long as he makes
149
no other breach of God’s commandments, or the just laws of the land.”
In that same year, Roger Williams of New England, an Independent
Baptist, published his “Bloody tenet of Persecution for the cause of
Conscience;” in which he maintains that “persons may, with less sin, be
forced to marry whom they cannot love, than to worship where they
cannot believe.” He broadly denies that “Christ had appointed the civil
sword as a remedy against false teachers.” This gentleman obtained the
first charter for the State of New Providence, of which he was constituted
Governor. And to his honour, it deserves to be recorded that he was the
first Governor who ever pleaded that liberty of conscience was the birth-
right of man. He granted it to those who differed from himself, when he
had the power to withhold it.
101
It would be tiresome to mention all the pamphlets which appeared about
this time from the same quarter. For I have not met with anything written
by Episcopalians or Presbyterians down to this period, which contains
reasonable sentiments on the subject. In the Westminster Assembly, it
was debated at great length, and with great keenness. The Presbyterians
and Independents ranked on opposite sides in the controversy, and
150
fought, according to Baillie, “Tanquam pro aris et focis.” Toleration
was considered the grand and fundamental principle of Independents —
the god of their idolatry; and it would have been happy for the world, if so
bloodless a divinity had always been the object of worship. This was in
the estimation of many at that time, the opprobrium of the Independents;
it will now perhaps be granted as their distinguished honour, that in the
midst of much opposition, they manfully advocated a most important,
but little understood, and unjustly abused right. And when opportunity
afforded, they “did to others, as they would have others do to them.”
In 1647, Jeremy Taylor published his “Liberty of Prophesying; showing
the unreasonableness of prescribing to other men’s faith, and the iniquity
of persecuting differing opinions.” This is the first work produced by a
churchman on this subject, which is deserving of any notice. It contains,
on the whole, rational and scriptural views of the impropriety of
exercising authority in religion. But there are some circumstances which
detract greatly from its value. He argues chiefly from the difficulty of
expounding the Scriptures so as to arrive at any certain conclusion on
some subjects — from the incompetence of Popes, Councils, or the
Church at large, to determine them — from the innocence of error in
pious persons — and from the antiquity and plausibility of various
sentiments or practices generally held to be erroneous.
102
It is more on such grounds as these that he rests his defence of toleration,
than on the natural rights of men and the plain language of Scripture. In
many parts of the book, it is difficult to determine whether Taylor is
arguing from his own personal conviction, or merely as an advocate to
serve his cause at the lime. Though a churchman, he was a dissenter
when he wrote the Liberty of Prophesying — he was then pleading to
Episcopacy for toleration. He must either have written what he did not
himself fully believe, to serve a temporary purpose; or in a few years his
opinions must have undergone a wonderful change. With the return of
monarchy, Taylor emerged from obscurity, wrote no more on the Liberty
of Prophesying, and was a member of the privy council of Charles II.
From there proceeded all the persecuting edicts against the poor Non-
conformists. Liberty deserves to be viewed, therefore, either as the
special pleading of a party counsellor; or else as the production of Jeremy
Taylor, imploring relief for himself — deprived of his benefice and the
privileges of his profession. Bishop Taylor, later “enlightened” by his
elevation to the Episcopate, and enjoying (with his party) security and
abundance, became ashamed of it. In his own conduct, he published the
most effectual confutation of his former opinions or sincere beliefs.
How different was the conduct of John Owen! We have already noted the
state of his mind respecting liberty of conscience. He had pleaded for it to
a certain extent before; others we have seen had published some of the
same sentiments. But he has the honour of being the first man in England
who advocated, when his party was uppermost, the rights of conscience,
and who continued to the last to maintain and defend them.
103
In his treatise “Of Toleration,” annexed to his sermon, he examines the
arguments against it, brought from Holy Writ and other considerations.
At the end, he states his own defence of religious liberty. In the first part,
he examines particularly the arguments alleged in the testimony of the
Scotch General Assembly, and exposes their fallacy. He next considers
most of the other arguments, which have been alleged in defence of
persecution or coercion, and proceeds to note the duty of the Magistrate
to the truth, and to persons professing it — to those who oppose and
revile it — and to those who dissent from it. Without professing to be of
the same mind with him in all the particulars of the last topic, we must
admit that there is so much moderation in his views, and so many
exceptions to guard against the abuse of them, that it appears as if he
himself felt the difficulties which were involved in supposing that the civil
Magistrate (who had the truth on his side) was bound to provide places of
worship and means of support for those who were engaged in promoting
it; and to discourage or remove external inducements to embrace false
worship. He does not seem to have attended to the difference between
what the Magistrate is bound to do as a Christian (if he is one), and what
he is called to do as the head of the civil community. Notwithstanding his
mistake here, he explicitly, and by a variety of arguments, maintains that
the Magistrate has no right to meddle with the religion of any person
whose conduct is not injurious to society nor destructive of its peace and
order.
104
“Gospel constitutions in the case of heresy or error. do not seem to favour any course of violence
under civil penalties. It is foretold that heresies must be, 2Pet 2.1 but this is to identify those who
are approved, not destroy those who are not. By destroying, I mean with temporal punishment.
For all the arguments produced for the punishment of heretics, excepting capital censures — and
these being the tendency of all beginnings of this kind — I mention only the greatest, including
all other arbitrary penalties, being but steps in walking toward the utmost censures.
Admonitions and excommunications upon rejection of admonition, are the highest constitutions
against such persons — waiting with all patience on those who oppose themselves, lest at any
time God grants them repentance to acknowledge the truth. Imprisoning, banishing, slaying, is
scarcely a patient waiting. God does not so wait on unbelievers. Perhaps those who call for the
sword on earth are as unacquainted with their own spirits, as those who called for fire from
heaven, Luke 11. And perhaps the parable of the tares gives us a positive rule as to this whole
business. For the present, I will not fear to assert that the answers to it, borrowed by our divines
151
from Bellarmine, will not endure the trial.”
This passage alone is sufficient to show the extent and liberality of
Owen’s opinions; the circumstances in which they were published, and
the perseverance with which they were held, are full evidences of the
sincerity of their author. While noting his exertions in this noble cause, I
cannot allow myself to pass over some other names which are entitled to
a distinguished place in the list of enlightened defenders of religious
liberty. The first is the celebrated, defamed, and unfortunate Sir Henry
Vane.
105
With all his mysticism, he appears to have felt the power and imbibed the
spirit of the gospel; and he possessed the most exalted views of civil and
religious freedom. In his “Retired Man’s Meditations,” published in 1655,
he accurately defines in a single sentence, the limits of human authority:
“The province of the Magistrate is this world and man’s body; not his
conscience, nor the concerns of eternity.”
Milton, who knew Vane well, expresses in one of his sonnets the high
opinion which he entertained of his religion, and of his skillful
discernment on the subject which we now treat:
To know both spiritual pow’r and civil, what each means.
What severs each, thou hast learn ‘d, which few have done:
The bounds of either sword to thee we owe:
Therefore on thy firm hand religion leans
In peace, and reckons thee her eldest son.”
Milton himself must ever be reckoned one of the ablest advocates of this
important doctrine. In his treatise on “Civil Power in Ecclesiastical
causes,” he maintains that, “it is not lawful for any power on earth to
compel in matters of religion,” and that “two things had ever been found
working much mischief to the cause of God: force on the one side
restraining, 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 with
contentment, who does not have liberty to serve God and save his own
soul according to the best light which God has planted in him to that
purpose, by the reading of his Revealed Will and the guidance of his Holy
Spirit.” And in his “Speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing,” he
admirably exposes the absurdity and iniquity of theological as well as
political gags and licenses, and pours out a flow of the most beautiful and
152
impassioned eloquence on this most interesting subject.
106
Both Vane and Milton, let it be ever remembered, were Independents on
the subject of Church Government. Locke, whose immortal treatise on
toleration, in accuracy of statement and cogency of reasoning, placed all
its predecessors far behind, has left almost nothing to be done by
succeeding writers. Though Locke was a Churchman, the main argument
of his treatise is the grand principle of Dissent. Many who extol the
Philosopher, forget that he plowed with the heifer of an Independent.
Locke was a student of Christ Church while Owen was Dean. It can
scarcely be doubted that he was indebted to the head of the College for
the germ of his future work.
The preceding statements will perhaps enable the reader to understand
the truth of Hume’s Observation:
“Of all Christian sects, this (the Independents) was the first which, during its prosperity as well
as adversity, always adopted the principle of toleration. And it is remarkable that so reasonable a
153
doctrine owed its origin not to reasoning, but to the height of extravagance and fanaticism.”
It would, indeed, be very remarkable if it were true. But with Hume,
extravagance and fanaticism are only terms of reproach for scriptural
sentiments and religious zeal. If Hume were better acquainted with some
of the Independents, he would have found them not so incapable of
reasoning as he alleges; and he might have discovered that their
tolerating principles were not the result of accident or caprice, but of the
ideas which they entertained on other parts of Christianity.
107
I am aware that their sentiments on the subject of religious liberty, are
attempted to be accounted for from the operation of accidental
circumstances. It has been said,
“The Independents were originally few in number. And thus subjected to the contempt and
severity of persecution, they expatiated on the importance and blessedness of religious freedom.
Innumerable sects — many of them professing the wildest tenets, and actuated by the most
gloomy and savage enthusiasm — arose in England during the struggles between the King and
the Parliament. And these sects naturally supported the Independents. Thus the ardour for
toleration, which had originally been excited in them (as it had been in other denominations) by
an eagerness to escape from suffering, became the spirit of their system — from policy, and from
an anxiety to check or subdue the Presbyterians. It continued to be so, after they had acquired
power. This is because they were aware that the slightest departure from it would have separated
from them the different sects, and thus restored preponderance to the enemies whom they had
154
so much cause to dread.”

All this may seem very plausible to a person superficially acquainted with
the period. But it is natural to ask why persecution did not drive others —
the Presbyterians for instance — to advocate toleration? Why did political
motives not induce them to make friends by the same means? Were the
Independents the only politicians during that period of anarchy?
108
Would not others have been likely to see through the vail of hypocrisy
now woven for the Independents by Dr. Cook, and not have left to him
the honour of the discovery? It is evident that he has not attended to
those parts of the system of Independency which necessarily, and
independent of all external circumstances, produce the love and the
defence of religious liberty.
Till the Professors of Christianity obtained possession of secular power,
or became the object of its patronage, they never thought of compulsory
measures for promoting the faith, or restraining the religion of others.
The renunciation of all dependence on civil authority in matters of
religion, and of all connexion with temporal governments, forms an
essential part of consistent independency. The abandonment of
everything like force for promoting or preserving the interests of the
Gospel, follows as a matter of course. Another principle of Independency
is the necessity of genuine conversion, to qualify and entitle men to enjoy
the privileges of the kingdom of Christ. The absurdity as well as the
unlawfulness of using any means but spiritual to produce this change,
and to bring men into the church, must be very obvious. So fully were the
sentiments of the Independents understood on this point during the
period of which we are speaking, that Baillie represents them as their
155
capital opinion, and the chief cause of their separation from others. He
declares that if they were acted on, forty for one would be excluded from
156
the best reformed churches. In connexion with these leading principles
of the system, may I just note a third which contributes to the same
result: every member of an Independent Church is understood to take
part in the discipline of that church.
109
He is never required to act except according to his own convictions, and
he can no longer be retained in it, than he is satisfied that its procedure is
according to the word of God. If Independents judge it to be unlawful to
compel one another to act contrary to their convictions, they must hold
the unlawfulness of interfering by force to compel or restrain others.
These are the principles out of which the tolerating conduct of
Independents arises. Its fundamental doctrines are favourable to all that
is valuable in the civil and religious privileges of men. A persecuting
Independent is a monster, because he is acting in opposition to the life
and glory of his own system. Others may persecute consistent with their
principles; but he can only do it in the face of his. To withdraw from
national churches, protest against authoritative synods, and refuse
subscription to human creeds — and yet to employ the arm of power to
propagate their own sentiments, or to defend the use of it by others,
would be an exhibition of the grossest folly, or the practice of the greatest
knavery ever known in the world. To maintain the necessity of conversion
in order to enjoy the kingdom of God, and to promote conversion at the
point of the sword, would be the incongruities of madmen, and not the
actions of rational beings.
As I have quoted the opinion of one northern philosopher on
Independency, I will perhaps be excused for quoting another. Dr. Adam
Smith, after noting what the effect would be of entirely withdrawing
political influence and positive law from religion, and leaving the various
sects to the natural progress of truth or error, observes this:
“This plan of ecclesiastical government, or more properly, of no ecclesiastical government, was
what the sect called Independents — a sect no doubt of very wild enthusiasts — proposed to
establish in England toward the end of the Civil War. If it had been established, though of a very
unphilosophical origin, it would probably by this time have produced the most philosophical
157
good temper and moderation with regard to every sort of religious principle.”
110
This passage reveals the same philosophical contempt for religious
persons, and the same unphilosophical mode of accounting for facts and
opinions which were beyond the sphere of his own understanding, which
are marked in the language of his friend and countryman, Hume. It
clearly shows, however, that Smith’s opinion of the tolerating principles
of the Independents was the same as that of the historian of England. It
reveals the strong conviction which the philosopher had of the salutary
influence of these sentiments. If Hume and Smith had been capable of
entering into the views we have just been stating, they would probably
have given the Independents credit for knowing something of the
philosophy of Christianity, and of man too — and might have been led to
see that these principles are conducive not only to “philosophical good
temper,” but to something of higher and more durable importance.
I can scarcely allow myself to apologise for this long apparent digression.
The subject is one of so much importance, and the part which Owen took
in discussing it, so naturally led me to consider it, that I felt it impossible
to slightly pass it over. If Britain is in great measure indebted to the
Puritans for her CIVIL LIBERTY, then it is proper to show that she has been
indebted to the INDEPENDENTS for all that is rational and important in her
views of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
111
I know it may be said that, though the Independents possessed better
theoretical sentiments on the subject of toleration than others, when they
possessed power, they acted in the same manner as other parties have
done. Even Neal exclaims, “How defective was their instrument of
Government under Cromwell! How arbitrary the proceedings of their
tryers! How narrow their list of fundamentals! And how severe their
158
restraints of the press!” The conduct of the New England
Congregationalists toward Baptists and Quakers, has also been referred
to as evidence of the persecuting disposition of Independents when they
possess power. As all these subjects will come before us in subsequent
parts of this work, I must waive any consideration of them now. I am far
from thinking that every Independent fully understood and practised all
his own principles. But the more the subject is investigated, the more I
am satisfied that the statement of Hume will be found to be correct.
It does not appear that Owen’s silence on the subject of the King’s death
lost him the favour of Parliament. For on the nineteenth of April
following, we find him again preaching before it and the chief officers of
the army, when he delivered his celebrated Sermon on the “Shaking and
translation of the heavens and the earth;” for which, the next day, he
received the thanks of the house, and an order to print it. In his
dedication to the Commons, he apologises for his inability to do justice to
the subject, from the little time he had to prepare it, and “the daily
troubles, pressures, and temptations he had to encounter in the midst of
a poor and numerous people.” It is a long and important discourse,
containing many free sentiments expressed with great vigour and
plainness.
112
He exclaims, as if inspired by a spirit of prophecy, “The time shall come
when the earth will disclose her slain, and not the simplest heretic will
have his blood unrevenged; nor shall any atonement or expiation be
allowed for this blood, while a toe of the image or a bone of the beast is
159
left unbroken.” Nor does he leave us at any loss to ascertain who are
the antichristian powers to which he refers. He asks,
“Is it not evident that the whole present constitution of the government of the nations is so
cemented with antichristian mortar, from the very top to the bottom, that without a thorough
shaking they cannot be cleansed? This plainly reveals that the work which the Lord is doing
relates to the untwining of this close combination against himself and the kingdom of his dear
Son; and he will not leave it till he has done it. To what degree this shaking shall proceed in the
several nations, I have nothing in particular to determine, the Scripture not having expressed it.
This alone is certain: it shall not stop nor receive its period, before the interest of
160
Antichristianity is wholly separated from the power of these nations.”

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

161
acquaintance of Cromwell, who then heard him for the first time, and
was much pleased with the discourse. Owen intended to return home
within two days after preaching.
113
But calling before he left town, to pay his respects to General Fairfax, with
whom he had become acquainted at the siege of Colchester, he
accidentally met with Cromwell there. When Owen waited on his
excellency, the servants told him, he was so much indisposed that several
persons of quality had been refused admittance. However, he sent in his
name, requesting it be mentioned to the General — that he only came to
express his obligations for the many favours received from him. In the
meantime, Cromwell came in with a number of the officers. Seeing Owen,
he immediately walked up to him, and laying his hand on his shoulder in
the familiar manner which he used with his friends, he said “Sir, you are
the person I must be acquainted with.” Owen modestly replied, “That will
be much more to my advantage than yours.” “We shall soon see that,”
said Cromwell. Taking him by the hand, he immediately led Owen into
Fairfax’s garden, where he told him of his intended expedition to Ireland,
and requested that he would accompany him for the purpose of
regulating the affairs of Trinity college. Owen objected, on account of his
charge of the church at Coggeshall. But Cromwell would take no denial,
and from entreaties he proceeded to commands. He told him his
youngest brother was going as standard-bearer in the army, and he
employed him to use his influence to induce compliance. He also wrote to
the church at Coggeshall on the subject, which was exceedingly averse to
part with its beloved pastor — till at length Cromwell told them he must,
and should go. Owen, finding how things stood at last, consulted some of
his brethren in the ministry, who advised him to comply. He finally began
162
to make some preparation for the journey.
114
Such was the commencement of Owen’s intimacy and connexion with
Oliver Cromwell. The friendship now begun, lasted the greater part of
Cromwell’s life, and produced very important consequences for Owen. It
is evident from the attentions he paid Owen, and the honours which he
conferred on him, that Cromwell had a high regard for him. That Owen
had a reciprocal respect for Cromwell, is no less certain. It was a respect
founded on what he believed respecting the private worth, the personal
talents, and the public virtues of that extraordinary man. On few subjects
is it so difficult to speak with candour and justice, as on the character of
Cromwell. By his friends, or his enemies, he has been represented as a
saint or a demon; adorned with every virtue, or degraded with every vice,
of human nature. His character was certainly made up of inconsistencies;
and his history is full of paradoxes. Whether good or evil most
preponderated in his conduct will perhaps be estimated, as men are
friends or enemies of his political measures. He is by no means entitled to
unmingled praise; and unqualified censure is equally undeserved. He did
much to promote the glory of his country. If not a religious man himself,
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 he
should, it can scarcely be denied that few men who have grasped the rod
of power, have used it with so much moderation, and so generally for the
good of others, as Oliver Cromwell.

 CHAPTER V.
Owen preaches before Parliament — Joins the army — Character of the array — Arrives in Ireland
—Labours in Dublin — First controversy with Baxter — Character of Baxter — Preaches before
Parliament on his return from Ireland — Measures of the Commonwealth to promote religion in
that country — Owen appointed to accompany Cromwell into Scotland-Preaches in Berwick and
Edinburgh — State of religion in Scotland — Testimony of the English Ministers—Of Binning —
Rutherford — Burnet — Neal—Kirkton — Owen’s return to Coggeshall — Appointed to the
Deanery of Christ Church — Account of this office — Remarks on his acceptance of it — Strictures
of Wilton — Owen preaches before Parliament — Death of Ireton — Owen preaches his Funeral
Sermon — Character of Ireton — Preaches again before Parliament.
SEVERAL months elapsed between Owen’s first interview with Cromwell,
and being under the necessity of accompanying him to Ireland. On the
7th of June, 1649, the city of London made a grand entertainment in
Grocer’s hall, for the general, the officers of state, and the House of
Commons — to which they repaired in great pomp after hearing two
sermons from Owen and Goodwin. On the following day, the house
referred it to the Oxford committee to prefer the preachers to be heads of
163
colleges in that university, and returned their thanks for the sermons.
The discourse which Owen preached on this occasion is printed in the
collection of his sermons and tracts, entitled “Human power defeated.” At
the foot of the first page, it is said to have been occasioned by the defeat
of the Levellers at Burford on the preceding 18th of May. In the discourse,
there are repeated allusions to the designs and ruin of that party. They
were a body of fanatical desperados, who were enemies to civil
magistracy, to the regular ministry of the gospel, and to all stated
ordinances.
116
About four thousand of them assembled at Burford under the command
of a person named Thomson — formerly condemned for sedition, but
pardoned by the general. Colonel Reynolds, and afterwards Fairfax and
Cromwell, fell upon them while they were unprepared for defence. They
164
took four hundred of them prisoners, and subdued the rest.
On the 2d of July, Owen received his commission from Parliament to go
to Ireland as chaplain to Lieutenant General Cromwell; £100 per annum
165
was ordered to be paid to his wife and children in his absence. This was
no great reward for leaving his family and an affectionate congregation.
About the middle of August, he sailed from Milford Haven with the army,
which consisted of fourteen thousand men. Prior to its embarkation, a
day of fasting and prayer was observed. After three ministers had prayed
(of whom Owen was probably one), Cromwell himself, and Colonels
Gough and Harrison. expounded some parts of Scripture very suitable to
the occasion. The influence of these exercises, and such conduct on the
part of its commanders, must have produced a very powerful effect on a
body so constituted as the army of the Commonwealth. It was under a
severe discipline — not an oath was to be heard throughout the whole
166
camp. The soldiers spent their leisure hours in reading their bibles,
167
singing psalms, and in religious conferences.
117
Nor are we entirely dependent on the testimony of friends for this view of
the Parliamentary troops. Chillingworth says,
“I observed a great deal of piety in the commanders and soldiers of the Parliament’s army. I
confess their discourse and behavior says they are Christians; but I can find little of God or
godliness in our men. They will not seek God while they are in their bravery, nor trust Him when
they are in distress. I have to make a fuss to get them on their knees, to call upon God, or to
resign themselves to Him when they go about any desperate service, or are thrown into any
168
difficult situation.”
The testimony of Lord Clarendon, comparing the two armies, is much to
the same purport. “The royal army,” he says, “was a dissolute,
undisciplined, wicked, beaten army — whose horse their friends feared
and their enemies laughed at — being terrible only in plunder, and
169
resolute in running away.” Elsewhere he describes the other forces as
“an army to which victory is entailed, and which humanly speaking, could
hardly fail of conquest wherever it should be led — an army whose
sobriety and manners, whose courage and success, made it famous and
terrible over the world — which lived like good husbandmen in the
170
country, and good citizens in the city.”
Such was the army commanded by Cromwell, which gained all his battles
and to which, for a time, Owen was attached as one of the chaplains. It
consisted of a body of warriors which fought with more than mortal
171
courage, animated not merely by amor patriae, but by more powerful
172
principles — what they considered the amor Dei et gloriae eternae, .
118
In the course of the same month in which it embarked, it arrived safely in
Dublin, where Owen took up his lodgings in Trinity college. It is no part
of my business to follow the. progress of the army, or to describe its
victories, Owen remained in Dublin during the greater part of the period
he spent in Ireland. His health was somewhat affected, and “he was
burdened with manifold employments, and with constant preaching to a
numerous multitude of people, as thirsting after the gospel as ever he
173
conversed with,” Nor were his labours without fruit. I have accidentally
discovered two individuals, Dorothy Emett, and Major Manwaring, who
ascribe their first convictions, to his preaching in Dublin. Many more, we
may hope, will appear at another day.
“Mr. Owen,” says Dorothy Emett, “was the first man by whose means and ministry I became
sensible of my condition. I was much cast down, and could have no rest within me; and thus I
continued till his going away from us; and at his going he bid me to believe in Christ, and be
fervent in prayer.”
She afterwards obtained comfort.
“I heard Mr. Owen in Dublin,” said Major Manwaring, “who did me much good, and made me
see my misery in the want of Christ.”
I extract these testimonies from a curious and scarce book by John
Rogers, “The tabernacle for the Sun,” in which the experience of a
174
number of members of the Independent church in Dublin is recorded.
I feel the more pleasure in quoting them, as they sufficiently confute an
unfounded saying ascribed to Dr. Owen — that he never knew that he had
been useful in converting one sinner. I am very sure that Owen had no
reason for such a discouraging view of his labours. What he did in
arranging the affairs of Trinity college cannot be ascertained, as the
registers of the university prior to the Restoration no longer exist.
Whatever he was entrusted with, we are sure he would endeavour to
conscientiously discharge it; though it must have been extremely difficult
to effect anything of great importance in the circumstances in which
Ireland then was, and during a residence of only a few months.
119
While in Dublin, however, amidst all his labours, he found time to
prepare a reply to some remarks of Baxter’s, on his work on Redemption.
This he published in London, about May the next year. “Of the death of
Christ, the price he paid, and the purchase he made — and the doctrine
concerning these things, formerly delivered in a treatise against universal
redemption, vindicated from the exceptions and objections of Mr. R. B.”
4to. This was the commencement of a series of discussions and
confrontations between Baxter and Owen, which continued on one
subject or another till the death of both these eminent men. Justice
obliges me to state that Baxter was invariably the aggressor, as Owen
seems never to have meddled with him except in self-defence. Whatever
his reasons were, Baxter seldom omitted an opportunity to put a blot on
Owen’s conduct or writings. And not content with wrangling during his
life, he left a legacy of reproach on the memory of his brother, which
175
would continue to operate long after his death.
The work of Baxter, to which this is a reply, is his “Aphorisms of
Justification,” in an Appendix to which he made some criticisms on
Owen’s views of redemption. Baxter was a man of eminent piety and
indefatigable zeal; who laboured hard to make that which was crooked
straight, and to number that which was wanting — to reconcile conflicting
opinions, and to harmonize contending spirits.
120
Pure in his intentions, but often injudicious in his measures, his labours
frequently produced only disappointment and trouble. He was the most
metaphysical man of his age, constantly employing himself in making
distinctions where there was no difference, or in attempting to show that
the most opposite sentiments allowed for the same explanation. A
professed enemy to controversy, yet perpetually engaged in it, he
multiplied disputes by endeavouring to destroy them. He was neither a
Calvinist nor an Arminian; and yet at times he was claimed by both. He
was neither a churchman nor a dissenter; but sometimes wrote against
the one, and sometimes against the other — till all parties might quote
him as an advocate, and meet him as an enemy. To no man, perhaps,
were the words of the heathen satyrist ever more applicable: —
Tenet insanabile vulnus
176
Scribendi cacoëthes.
Of this he seems to have been at times sensible, as he frankly
acknowledges that he had written multitudo librorum [a multitude of
books] which contained multa vana et inutilia [much that was empty and
useless]. He was nearly of the same standing with Owen — he was inferior
in learning, but Owen’s equal in acuteness, in patience of research, and in
the abundance of his labours. The differences between them on various
subjects, lay more, perhaps, in words than in things. It must be regretted
that a degree of sharpness marked the conduct of their discussions, which
the importance of the points at issue, and the meekness of wisdom, will
by no means justify.
121
A particular account of Owen’s reply to Baxter would now be very
uninteresting, as he admits himself that the contention lay more about
“expressions than opinions.” It is, in fact, a piece of dry scholastic
177
discussion, partaking more of the character of theological logomachy,
than almost any other performance of our author. He was doubtless led
to this by the subtlety of his opponent, who employed all his acuteness to
detect error in Owen’s views of the death of Christ, and the particularity
of its design. Owen, however, stoutly defends his original statements and
successfully unravels the web in which his ingenious adversary
endeavoured to entangle him. A simpler reference to the plain language
of Scripture, and less attachment to merely human forms of expression,
178
would certainly have been advantageous to both. A prolix contention
as to whether the death of Christ was solutioejusdem, or only tantundem
— that is, whether it was a payment of the very thing which by law we
ought to have paid, or if it was a payment of something held by God to be
an equivalent — does not promise much profit or gratification to the
mind. A man’s views of the atonement, as the sole ground of his
acceptance, are not likely to be much affected whichever of the two sides
he embraces. Yet this seems to be the turning point of the debate between
Owen and Baxter.
However trifling the difference may appear, Baxter published an answer
to Owen’s Vindication in the “Confession of his Faith.” 4to. 1655. The
object of this, was to explain himself more fully on the subjects of
repentance, justification, sincere obedience, etc. In the course of this
volume, he introduces Owen, and tries to fasten on him the charge of
Antinomianism. Owen replied to this at the end of his Vindiciae
Evangelicae, vindicating his former sentiments, and complaining of
injustice on the part of Baxter.
122
Determined to have the last word, even if only by way of assigning
reasons for not writing, Baxter rejoined and recriminated in an Appendix
to his “Five Disputations of Right to the Sacraments.” 4to. 1656. So
interminable at times are the debates of systematic theologians. Baxter,
however, acknowledged afterwards that he had meddled too rashly with
 179
Owen, and that he was then too raw to be a writer.
Immediately after his return from Ireland, he was called to preach before
Parliament on a day of solemn humiliation throughout the kingdom —
February 28th, 1650. This discourse, entitled, “The Stedfastness of
Promises, and the Sinfulness of Staggering,” reveals the deep interest he
took in the welfare of Ireland. He says,
“I wish there were for the present, one gospel preacher for every walled town in the English
possession in Ireland. The land mourns, and the people perish for lack of knowledge: many run
to and fro, but it is upon other designs — knowledge is not increased. They are sensible of their
wants, and cry out for supply. The tears and cries of the inhabitants of Dublin after the
manifestation of Christ, are ever in my view. If they were in the dark, and loved to have it so, it
might in some respects close the door on our innermost compassion. But they cry out of their
darkness, and are ready to follow whoever has a candle. If their being without the gospel does
not move our hearts, it is hoped that their importunate cries will disquiet our rest, and extort
180
our help, as a beggar does alms.”

123
He calls upon Parliament not to consider the subjugation of Ireland the
only object deserving of their attention; but to appoint a committee for
the consideration of its religious state, and to take other steps for
supplying the wants and redressing the grievances of that ill-fated
country. In consequence of these representations, seconded by those of
Cromwell, Parliament passed an ordinance on the 8th of March, for the
encouragement of religion and learning in Ireland. By this act, certain
lands were devoted to support Trinity college and the endowment of its
professors; for erecting another college in Dublin and maintaining its
teachers; and for the erection of a free school and the support of the
181
master and scholars. The university of Dublin being thus revived and
put on a new footing, the Parliament sent over six of their most
acceptable preachers to give it reputation — appointing them two
hundred pounds per annum paid out of the bishop’s lands. Until that
could be duly raised, it was to be paid out of the public revenue. By these
methods, learning began to revive, and in a few years, religion appeared
182
with a better face than it had ever done in that kingdom before.
Nothing is more honourable to the Commonwealth government, than the
attention it invariably paid to representations respecting the state of
religion in all parts of the country, and the measures it employed to
advance the interests of the gospel. It was, in fact, a college de
183
propaganda fide as much as a civil institute. It provided for the
spiritual as well as the temporal welfare of its subjects. It did this without
making a particular religious profession the test of civil privileges; and it
never forced the particular sentiments of the governors on the
consciences of the governed.
124
Perhaps policy dictated some of its religious measures, but on the whole,
religion was never so little abused by state enactments, or made so little
subservient to worldly purposes. I can only account for this by admitting
the decidedly Christian character of the body of men then in power.
Persons of another description would either have pursued different
measures, or have given more of a secular aspect and tendency to
religious objects.
Cromwell returned to London the end of May, 1650, and left for Scotland
the following month. An order, some time after, passed the House of
Commons for Mr. Joseph Caryl and Mr. Owen to proceed to the army in
184
Scotland per the desire of the general. According to the declaration of
the Parliament, the invasion of Scotland was occasioned by the Scotch
declaring themselves enemies to the Commonwealth government, and to
all who adhered to it. This was by their folly in proclaiming in Scotland,
that Charles Stuart was king of England and Ireland, and promising him
assistance to invade England. Other things also led the Parliament to
believe that the Scots would march into England at the first opportunity,
to avenge the quarrel of the covenant, the death of the king, and the loss
of their influence. This declaration was published by the Parliament. And
another by Cromwell, in name of the army, was addressed in the style of
the times, “To all that are saints and partakers of the faith of God’s elect
in Scotland.” The latter contains reasons for putting the king to death and
excluding his family from the throne; for erecting a commonwealth and
rejecting Presbyterian church government; along with a refutation of the
charges of heresy and blasphemy charged against the army.
125
Cromwell, however, did not spend time in paper manifestos. The progress
of his arms gave an energy to his declarations — and the battle of Dunbar
decided the fate of Scotland, and opened the gates of its metropolis. Owen
joined him at Berwick, in obedience to the orders of Parliament. We have
no reason to think that he was at all desirous of the kind of employment
thus forced upon him. He was united to an affectionate church, fond of
rural retirement, and the head of a growing family. The noise of a camp
and the din of arms must have been revolting to his feelings, and
destructive of his studious habits. In Ireland, he had remained as short a
time as possible, and his residence in Scotland could not be more
congenial to his wishes. The Scotch were generally opposed to the
Parliamentary proceedings, and their ministers were among the most
determined enemies of that form of church polity to which Owen was
attached. In such circumstances, the preaching of an apostle would have
been listened to with distrust and suspicion; and his conduct, however
harmless, would scarcely pass without reprehension.
We have two Sermons preached by Owen during his journey to Scotland,
and his residence in it. They are both from the same text, Isaiah 56.7.
“For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all people.” The first
was preached at Berwick, on the advance of the army; and the other in
Edinburgh. In a dedication prefixed to them, addressed “to the Lord
General Cromwell,” and dated Edinburgh, November 26th, 1650, he tells
Cromwell that, “It was with thoughts of peace that he embraced his call to
this place in time of war” — that his chief design in complying with it,
126
“was to pour out a savour of the gospel on the sons of peace in Scotland; that he hoped this had
been manifested in the consciences of all with whom he had to deal in the work of the ministry;
and that though some were so seasoned with the leaven of contention about carnal things, as to
disrelish the weightier things of the gospel, yet the great Owner of the vineyard had not left him
without a comfortable assurance that his labour in the Lord had not been in vain.”
The discourses are entitled, “The Branch of the Lord, the Beauty of Zion;”
they contain scarcely an allusion to the peculiar circumstances of
Scotland.
When the English army took possession of Edinburgh, the ministers of
the city retired to the castle for protection. In consequence of this, a very
curious correspondence took place between Cromwell and them. The
General sent notice to the Governor of the castle, that the ministers might
return to discharge their duties, that they would have full liberty to
preach, and that none in the army would molest them. They replied that
no security being offered for their persons, they resolved to reserve
themselves for better times, and to wait upon Him who had hid his face
for a while from the sons of Jacob. Cromwell replied to this in a letter to
the Governor, which produced an answer from the ministers, and a
185
rejoinder from the General. The correspondence affords a curious
illustration of the sentiments of both parties. As it is printed not only in
Thurloe’s State Papers, and Whitelocke’s Memorials, but also in Neal, it is
186
unnecessary to insert it here.
127
As the Presbyterian ministers remained in the castle, the ministers of the
army took possession of the pulpits, where the people heard them with
187
suspicion and wonder. How long Owen remained in Edinburgh is
uncertain, he most probably accompanied the army to the west, and a
curious discussion is said to have taken place in Glasgow between some
of the Scotch ministers and him, in the presence of Cromwell. At this
meeting, it is said that Mr. Hugh Binning so managed the dispute, that he
nonplused Cromwell’s ministers. This led Oliver to ask, after the meeting
was over, who that learned and bold young man was. On being told his
name was Binning, he said, “He has bound well indeed;” but laying his
188
hand on his sword, “this will loose all again.” There is nothing
improbable in the meeting; and Cromwell’s pun quite accords with other
anecdotes of his conversation.
The state of religion in Scotland, during the ten years preceding the
English invasion, and the rule of the commonwealth afterwards, has been
much misunderstood. The zealous friends of Presbyterian discipline have
represented the period from 1638 to 1649 as the golden age of religion in
Scotland, and the following years as exhibiting a lamentable falling off.
And indeed, if true religion consists in the regular meeting of church
courts, and the overwhelming power of ecclesiastical rulers, the former
period would be very distinguished. But if much of the form may exist
without the power of religion, we will be cautious how we judge of the
state of religion from the proceedings of Assemblies.
128
It is beyond dispute that there were then many excellent men in the
church; but it is equally unquestionable that not a few of the clergy were
destitute of genuine piety, and a vast majority of the people were in no
better state. The Assemblies were exceedingly zealous in putting down
Episcopacy, in establishing uniformity, and in passing persecuting laws;
189
but they had much less of the spirit of Christ than their office required.
The English army and ministers had only a low opinion of the state of
religion upon coming into Scotland. According to a testimony from the
Army, quoted by Whitelocke, the Church of Scotland was “A Kirk whose
religion is formality, and whose government is tyranny, a generation of
190
very hypocrites and vipers.” Joseph Caryl, John Oxenbridge, and
Cuthbert Sydenham — ministers who attended the army — assert that.
“The experience of the true and deserving shepherds here (the ministers of the church) who are
as dear to their other brethren as sheep to the wolves, tells them that almost nine out of ten in
their flock are not sheep — not fit, they say, for civil much less, we say, for spiritual privileges.”
191

This language shows the state of parties in the church then; the
resolutionists and the remonstrants being something like the moderate
and the orthodox among the clergy now. If it is thought that these are the
prejudiced statements of enemies and strangers, then an extract or two
from the warmest and most upright friends of the church will show that
they are far from being too strong.
129
“The scantiness of gracious men,” says Hugh Binning, in a discourse
preached in 1650, “is the spot of judicatories — that there are many
children of the world, but few children of light in them. This is the spot
of Assemblies, Synods, and Presbyteries — that there are few godly
ministers. Alas that this complaint should be — even among those
whose office it is to beget many children to God — how few of them are
192
begotten, or have the image of their Father.”
The testimony of Mr. Samuel Rutherford, whose piety and attachment to
the church will not be questioned, is equally strong, respecting the secular
character and measures of the Assemblies.
“Afterward,” referring as I understand him to this period, “our work in public was too much
more in sequestration of estates, fining and imprisoning, than in a compassionate mournfulness
of spirit toward those whom we saw to oppose the work. In our Assemblies, we were more to set
up a state opposite to a state — more upon forms, citations, leading of witnesses, suspensions
from benefices — than to spiritually persuade and work upon the conscience with the meekness
and gentleness of Christ. The glory and royalty of our princely Redeemer and King was trampled
on, as any might have seen in our Assemblies. The way that the army, the sword, and the
countenance of nobles and officers seemed to sway, was the way that the censures carried. It
would have been better had there been more days of humiliation and fasting, and far less of
193
adjourning commissions, new peremptory summonses, and newly drawn up processes.”

If we pass from the clergy and church courts, to the people, the view given
of them by the friends of the church, will not appear more favourable.
“What now,” asks Mr. 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 the
194
greater blot that they are called so, and are not.”
130
Addressing them again, he says,
“Set aside your public service and professions, and is there anything behind your conversation,
but drunkenness, lying, swearing, contention, envy, deceit, wrath, covetousness, and the like?
Has the multitude not been as civil, and carried themselves as blamelessly, as the throng of our
visible church? What do you have more than they? What then are most of you? You bow a knee
195
to God neither in secret nor in your families.”

If Principal Baillie’s words already quoted have any meaning, not more
than one in “forty of the members of his church gave good evidence of
196
grace and regeneration.” These testimonies show that there may be
much professed zeal for the Lord of Hosts — much clamorous contention
about Confessions of Faith, Forms of Church Government, and
extirpation of heretics, and yet a deplorable degree of ignorance,
depravity, and irreligion.
It does not appear that the influence of the English army, and of
Cromwell’s government, was unfavourable to the state of religion in
Scotland. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that true religion
during this period, was in rather a prosperous state. It is true, Cromwell
put down the Assemblies, and curbed the spirit of interference with
politics which then so much prevailed among the ministers. But he
interfered with none of the other rights of the church; and he encouraged
the profession of the gospel in all ranks.
131
I “remember well,” says Bishop Burnet, “of three regiments coming to Aberdeen. There was an
order and discipline, and a face of gravity and piety among them, that amazed all people. Most of
them were Independents and Anabaptists: they were all gifted men, and preached as they were
moved. But they never disturbed the public assemblies in the churches but once. They came and
reproached the preachers for laying things to their charge that were false. I was then present.
The debate grew very fierce. At last they drew their swords; but there was no hurt done. Yet
197
Cromwell displaced the governor for not punishing this.”
The power of the church was reduced within a narrower compass. For
though it had liberty to excommunicate offenders, or debar them the
communion, it might not seize their estates, or deprive them of their civil
rights and privileges. No oaths or covenants were to be imposed, except
by direction from Westminster. And as all fitting encouragement was to
be given to ministers of the Established Church, so others who were not
satisfied with their form of Church Government, had liberty to serve God
in their own manner. This occasioned a great commotion among the
clergy, who complained of the loss of their covenant and church
discipline. They exclaimed against toleration as opening a door to all
kinds of error and heresy. But the English supported their friends against
198
all opposition.
The strongest testimony as to the prosperous condition of religion in
Scotland, is from the pen of Mr. James Kirkton, afterwards one of the
ministers of Edinburgh. From his opportunities, he was well able to
judge, and from his sentiments as a Presbyterian, he was unlikely to
overrate, the salutary influence of the measures of the commonwealth.
132
“They did indeed,” he says, “proclaim a sort of toleration toward Dissenters among Protestants,
but permitted the gospel to have its course, and Presbyteries and Synods to continue in the
exercise of their powers; and all the time of their government, the gospel prospered not a little,
but mightily. It is also true, that because the Scotch ministers were generally for the king on any
terms, they did not therefore permit the General Assembly to sit (and in this I believe they did
no bad office). For both the authority of that meeting was denied by the Protesters, and the
Assembly seemed to be more set upon establishing themselves than promoting religion. —
Errors in some places infected some few; yet all these losses were inconsiderable in regard to the
great success the word preached had in sanctifying the people of the nation. And I verily believe
there were more souls converted to Christ in that short period of time, than in any season since
the Reformation, though of triple its duration. Nor was there ever greater purity and plenty of
the means of grace than in their time. Ministers took pains; people were diligent. And if a man
had seen one of their solemn communions where many congregations met in great multitudes —
some dozen ministers used to preach; and the people continued for three days at least, in a kind
of trance as it were (so serious were they in spiritual exercises) — he would have thought it a
solemnity unknown to the rest of the world. — At the king’s return, every parish had a minister,
every village had a school, almost every family had a Bible; indeed, in most of the country all
the children could read the Scriptures, and were provided with Bibles, either by their parents or
199
their ministers.”
133
Nothing needs to be added to these testimonies. When the state of things
thus described, is contrasted with the condition of Scotland during the
whole government of the four last Stuarts, it will not be difficult for
anyone to determine whether the reign of legitimate and covenanted
royalty to which the people were so devoted, or the government of a
despised and constantly opposed usurpation, deserved the most respect.
It will also appear that the meetings and enactments of political,
intriguing General Assemblies were by no means so necessary to the
advancement of true religion as many have supposed. Also, doing justice
to the party with which Owen was most closely connected, requires that I
show that its measures and influence were generally favourable to the
interests of Christianity.
Owen continued with the army in Scotland till early in 1651 when he
returned to his family and flock at Coggeshall. There, however, he was not
allowed to rest long. According to the order which passed the House of
Commons more than a year before, Owen and Goodwin were preferred to
be heads of Colleges in Oxford. Goodwin was now revised to the
Presidency of Magdalen College, and Owen was made Dean of Christ
Church. The first notice he received of this was the appearance of the
following order in the newspapers of the day: “On the 18th March, 1651,
the House taking into consideration the worth and usefulness of Mr. John
Owen, M. A. of Queen’s College, ordered that he be settled in the Deanery
of Christ’s Church, in place of Dr. Reynolds.” Reynolds had been put into
the Deanery of Christ Church and the Vice-Chancellorship of the
University by the Presbyterian party. But refusing to take the engagement
as true to the government established without King or House of Lords, he
was deprived of it.
134
And though, to save the Deanery, he sometime after offered to take the
engagement, the Parliament, which was offended at his conduct, took
200
advantage of the forfeiture, and conferred it on Owen. Baxter says it
201
had previously been offered to Caryl, who refused it; but no evidence of
this appears. Soon after Owen’s appointment was made public, he
received a letter from the principal students at Christ Church, expressing
their great satisfaction at the appointment, and their desire that he would
come among them. Accordingly, with the consent of the Church, he
resigned his pastoral office, and took up his residence in Oxford in the
202
course of the same year.
Christ Church College is one of the best foundations in Oxford. It was
erected by Cardinal Wolsey. And though it has since undergone many
changes, it still remains a monument of the greatness of that ambitious
Churchman. The establishment consists of a Dean, eight Canons, eight
Chaplains, and one hundred students, with inferior officers. The office of
the Dean is to preside at all meetings of the College, and to deliver
Divinity Lectures. In the hierarchy, he is next in dignity to the Bishop of
Oxford; but the appointment is in the Crown. During the commonwealth,
the ecclesiastical functions of the office and the connexion with the
203
church, must have been suspended; but the temporalities of the
Deanery were not sequestrated along with the other Dean and Chapter
204
lands. This was probably on account of its relation to the University.
The emoluments of the office are now very considerable, and must have
been so even in the time of the commonwealth.
135
Owen’s account of this appointment and of himself are characterised by
his natural modesty, and Christian humility.
“I now clearly found that I who dreaded almost every academic employment, as being unequal
to the task, and at a time too when I had entertained hope that through the goodness of God in
giving me leisure and retirement, and strength for study, that the deficiency of genius and
penetration, might be made up by industry and diligence, was now so circumstanced that the
career of my studies must be interrupted by more and greater impediments than ever. For what
could be expected from a man not far advanced in years, and who had for some time been very
full of employment? I was accustomed only to the popular mode of speaking. And being entirely
devoted to the investigation of the grace of God through Jesus Christ, I had taken leave of all
scholastic studies. My genius is by no means quick; and I even forgot, in some measure, the
portion of polite learning that I might have formerly acquired. The most weighty and important
task of lecturing in public, was put upon me. This would strictly and properly require the whole
time and attention of the most grave and experienced divine. And in discharging it, if I had not
been greatly assisted and encouraged by the candour, piety, submission, and self-denial of the
auditors, and by their respect for the Divine institution, and their love of the truth with every
kind of indulgence to the earthen vessel — I would have long lost all hope of discharging that
205
province, either to the public advantage or my own satisfaction and comfort.”

136
It appears, at first, rather surprising that an Independent would have
accepted an office that has always been reckoned part of the ecclesiastical
establishment, but both Baptists and Independents were then in the
practice of accepting the livings — that is, the temporalities of the Church.
They did not, however, view themselves as parish ministers, who were
bound to administer all the ordinances of religion to the parish
population. They occupied the parochial edifices, and received a portion
of the tithes for their maintenance; but in all other respects, they acted
according to their own principles. The times were unsettled; the
Episcopal clergy were thrown out by the state, either on account of their
principles or their conduct; the funds of the church were not otherwise
disposed of. And because the Dissenters were discharging the duties of
public teachers, many of them (among whom was Owen) considered it
lawful to receive a portion of those provisions to which no other class of
men had then a better claim. It cannot be doubted that this state of things
would soon have introduced very serious evils among them; but these
were prevented by another revolution which restored Episcopacy, and
graciously threw the Dissenters on their own resources. The Dean of
Christ Church, however, was no further connected with the
Establishment than, as President of his College, he held a situation of
important influence, and was legally entitled to the support attached to
his office. He himself solemnly assures us that he never sought the office,
and was actually averse to it.
“While I was diligently employed in preaching the gospel, the Parliament of England promoted
me to a Chair in the celebrated University of Oxford, by their authority and influence — though
206
with reluctance on my part.”
137
From such declarations, and the former disinterestedness of his conduct,
we are bound to believe that a sense of duty alone induced him to accept
the Academic Chair. But I freely acknowledge that he and his brethren
who accepted of the livings of the Church, exposed themselves (not
unfairly) to the charge of inconsistency preferred against them by Milton.
That spirited writer, with his usual energy, declared that he,
“hated that Independents should take that name, as they may justly take it from their freedom of
Christian doctrine, and church discipline that is subject to no superior judge but God alone —
and yet seek to be Dependents on the magistrates for their maintenance. These two things,
Independence and State hire in religion, can never consist long or certainly together. For
magistrates at one time or other will pay none but those whom, by their committees of
examination, they find conformable to their interests and opinions. And hirelings will soon
frame themselves to that interest and those opinions which they see best pleasing to their
207
paymasters. And to seem right themselves, they will force others as to the truth.”
The Dean of Christ Church was called to preach before Parliament on the
24th of October 1651. It was the thanksgiving day appointed for the
destruction of the Scotch army at Worcester, “with sundry other mercies.”
This celebrated victory, “the crowning mercy” of Cromwell, completed the
ruin of Charles II and the subjugation of Scotland; and it established the
authority of the commonwealth in the three kingdoms. In the dedication
of this sermon to Parliament, the Dean expresses himself very strongly
concerning the principles and conduct of the people of Scotland in the
war, which the battle of Worcester terminated.
138
“With what deceivableness of unrighteousness, and lies in hypocrisy, the late grand attempt in
Scotland was carried on, is in some measure now made naked to the loathing of its
abominations. In digging deep to lay a foundation for blood and revenge; in covering private and
sordid ends with a pretence of glorious things; in outlining a face of religion upon a worldly
stock; in concealing distant aims and bloody animosities to compass one common end (that a
theatre might be provided to act several parts upon); in pleading necessity from an oath of God
to most desperate undertakings against God, it does not give place to any which former ages
have been acquainted with.”
The views of Owen on this subject were no doubt influenced by the
persons with whom he generally acted. But there were certainly great
inconsistencies in the proceedings of the Scotch leaders; and many things
were very provoking in their conduct to England. Correct religious
sentiments and sound policy would have dictated different measures both
toward Charles, and the people of England from those which they had
pursued. The sermon preached on this occasion is entitled, “The
Advantage of the Kingdom of Christ in the Shaking of the Kingdoms of
the world, or Providential Alterations in their subservience to Christ’s
Exaltation.” It contains many free and eloquent passages, especially on
the danger of human governments interfering with the principles and
rights of the kingdom of Christ; and on the abomination and extent of the
Antichristian apostasy.
“He that thinks Babylon,” says the preacher, “is confined to Rome and its open idolatry, knows
nothing of Babylon, nor of the New Jerusalem. The depth of a subtle mystery does not lie in
gross visible folly. It has been insinuating itself into all the nations for sixteen hundred years;
and to most of them it has now become as the marrow in their bones.
139
Before it is wholly shaken out, these heavens (ecclesiastical powers) must be dissolved, and this
earth (civil governments) must be shaken — their tall trees hewed down and set a howling, and
208
their residue transplanted from one end of the earth to another.”
Henry Ireton, son-in-law to Cromwell (by Bridget, his eldest daughter),
died while Lord Deputy of Ireland, on the 26th of November, 1651. His
body was brought over to England, and buried in Westminster Abbey on
the 6th of February, 1652, with great funeral solemnity.
“If he could have foreseen what was done,” says Ludlow, “he would certainly have made it his
desire that his body might have found a grave where his soul left it, so much did he despise those
pompous and expensive vanities; having erected for himself a more glorious monument in the
hearts of good men, by his affection to his country, his abilities of mind, his impartial justice, his
diligence in the public service, and his other virtues, which were a far greater honour to his
209
memory than a dormitory among the ashes of kings.”
Owen preached the funeral sermon on this occasion in the Abbey Church
of Westminster. It was published with the title, “The labouring Saint’s
dismission to his rest,” and dedicated to Col. Henry Cromwell, the
youngest son of the Protector. It is difficult to ascertain the true character
of Ireton. According to Burnet, “he had the principles and temper of a
Cassius.” Noble represents him as the most artful, dark, deliberate man of
210
all the republicans, by whom he was in the highest degree beloved.
140
And Hume acknowledges that he was a memorable personage, much
celebrated for his vigilance, industry, and capacity. That he was a man of
talents and disinterestedness, is admitted by all parties; that he was a
republican need not be denied; that he was a man of piety, there is strong
reason to believe. The testimony of Ludlow, who must have known him
well, is highly honourable; that of Heath, though intended as a reproach,
is scarcely less to his credit: “He was absolutely the best prayer maker
and preacher in the army, for which he may thank his education at
211
Oxford.” To deserve this character in an army of praying and preaching
men, argued for no ordinary attainments of a religious nature. Owen, who
must have known him intimately, expresses in a single sentence (a very
long one I admit), his opinion of this republican hero.
“My business is not to make a funeral oration; only I suppose that without offence I may desire
that in courage and permanency of business, in ability and wisdom for counsel, in faithfulness to
his trust and in his trust, in indefatigable industry in the pursuit of the work committed to him,
in faith on the promises of God and acquaintance with his mind in his mighty works of
providence, in love to the Lord Jesus and all his saints, in tender regard to their interest, delight
in their society, contempt of himself and all his for the gospel’s sake, with eminent self-denial in
all his concernments, in impartiality and sincerity in the execution of justice — that in these and
like things, we may have many raised up in the power and spirit in which he walked before the
212
Lord and the inhabitants of this nation.”

141
On the thirteenth of October following, Owen was again called to preach
before the House on a day of solemn humiliation. In one passage of this
sermon, we have a striking picture of the unsettled, chaotic state of
religion during this period of confusion.
“What now is the state of things by the lust of men? Some say, there is no gospel at all. Others
say, if there is, you have nothing to do with it. Some say look, here is Christ; others say, look
213
there. Some make religion a colour for one thing, others for another. Some say the
magistrate must not support the gospel; others say the gospel must subvert the magistrate.
Some say, your rule is only for men as men, you have nothing to do with the interest of Christ
and his Church; others say, you have nothing to do to rule men, except on account of their being
 saints. If you would have the gospel, say some, then down with its ministers; and if you would
have light, take care that you have ignorance and darkness. Things are being carried on as if it
were the care of men that there might be no trouble in the world, but that the name of religion
214
might lie at the bottom of it.”

It is surely gross injustice to charge the man who thus strongly regrets
and deprecates the religious confusion of the times, as one of the leading
instruments of producing that confusion. Owen always had correct views
of the importance and necessity of order; and neither his sentiments nor
his conduct necessarily produced disorder in either church or state. But it
is no strange thing for the greatest benefactors of their country to be
rewarded with reproach and misrepresentation.


 CHAPTER VI.
Division of the Memoirs at this period — Owen made Vice-Chancellor — Attends a Meeting in
London, called by Cromwell to promote union — Created D.D. — Elected M.P. for the University
— Cromwell’s Instrument of Government — Debate about the Construction of the Article
respecting Religious Liberty — Remarks on Neal’s account of it, and the Meeting of Ministers
respecting it — Owen appointed an Ejecting Commissioner and Tryer — Conduct of the Tryers —
Owen delivers Pococke — Baxter’s account of the Tryers — Owen’s measures for securing Oxford
— Correspondence with Thurloe — Attends a Meeting at Whitehall about the Jews — Preaches at
the Opening of a New Parliament — Again on a Fast day — Assists in defeating Cromwell’s attempt
to make himself King — Deprived of the Vice-Chancellorship.
The period during which Owen was Vice-Chancellor of Oxford, was by far
the busiest and most important of his life. It is thus proper to arrange our
memoirs of its transactions, in such a manner as to exhibit a correct view
of his general conduct, his connexions with the University, and his several
publications. Each of these topics, therefore, will form the subject of a
distinct chapter.
Oliver Cromwell was chosen Chancellor of Oxford in the month of
January, 1651. But being mostly in Scotland with the army, and finding it
inconvenient to attend to the affairs of the University, he delegated in the
following year, the Dean of Christ Church and some other heads of
Houses, to manage everything which required his consent as Chancellor
of the University. By letters dated September 9th, 1652, he nominated
Owen to be Vice-Chancellor in place of Dr. Dan. Greenwood; and on
September 26th, he was accordingly chosen by the unanimous suffrage of
215
the Senate, “notwithstanding his urgent request to the contrary.”
143
He does not speak of himself as having undertaken this difficult office in
deference to the opinions, solicitations, and commands of the leading
men of the University and in the State, by whom it had been in a great
measure forced upon him. “By accepting it,” he declares, “he had
216
knowingly sacrificed his peace, and all his studious pursuits.” Full
credit will be allowed him for sincerity in these declarations when the
circumstances of the University (which will be noted afterwards) are
brought forward.
In October 1653, the Vice-Chancellor was called to London by Cromwell
to attend a meeting of ministers of various denominations for the
purpose of considering their differences of sentiment, and of devising, if
possible, some plan of union. The following curious account is given of
this meeting in the newspapers of the day.
“Several ministers were addressed by his Excellency, the Lord Gen. Cromwell, to persuade those
who hold Christ the Head, and so hold the same in fundamentals, to agree in love that there be
no such divisions among people professing godliness, as there has been, nor railing or reviling
each other for differences only in form. There were Mr. Owen, Mr. Marshall (Presbyterian), Mr.
Nye (Independent), Mr. Jessey (Baptist), Mr. Harrison, and others, to whom the advice and
counsel of his Excellency was so sweet, so precious, and managed with such judgment and
graciousness, that it is hoped it will much tend to persuade those who fear the Lord in spirit and
217
truth, to labour for the union of all God’s people.”
144
Whether this was a serious proposal of Cromwell’s; or a political attempt
to discover through the medium of their leaders, the sentiments of the
various sects; or a mere hypocritical farce raised for the sake of producing
a particular effect, I do not pretend to determine. It does not appear that
the persons who were themselves consulted, suspected any evil, and
perhaps none was intended. Nothing of importance, however, resulted
from the meeting. It is much easier to propose plans of union, than to
carry them into effect. Religious differences will never be healed by state
interference or political management. The most likely way to effect it is by
teaching men to respect the supreme and exclusive authority of the word
of God, and by leaving every individual to follow the dictates of his
conscience respecting it. Peace and union are desirable; but not at the
expense of truth and principle.
While in London about this business, the University conferred on Owen
the degree of Doctor in Divinity. The diploma is dated the 22d December,
1653, and describes him as “In Palaestra Theologica exercitatissimus, in
concionando assiduus et potens, in disputando strenuus et acutus,” etc.
His friend, Thomas Goodwin, President of Magdalen College, was
diplomated at the same time, and described as “In scriptis in re
218
Theologica quam plurimis orbi notus.” Many of the early reformers
were decidedly opposed to Theological degrees. Carlostadt refused to
submit to the title of Doctor, and chose rather the designation of Brother
Andrew.
145
Zuinglius could not hear the title without horror. Grynaeus, Sebastian
Munster, and Myconius never assumed it: the last, indeed, when urged to
accept the degree, as required by a law of the University, offered to resign
his professorship rather than submit to it. Melanchthon and Oporinus
both refused to accept of it. All these learned men seem to have thought
such distinctions are inconsistent with obedience to our Lord’s injunction
219
in Mat. 23.8-10. Erasmus said, with his usual jocularity, “The title of
Doctor makes a man neither wiser nor better.” It is gratifying to be able to
give the sentiments of Owen on this subject. At the time in which he
flourished, such degrees were not so common as they have since become.
And most of those who received them, probably deserved to enjoy them,
as far as learning and theological attainments go. But Owen submitted to
the honour with great reluctance. Cawdry, in one of his attacks on Owen,
insinuates that he had been offended by Cawdry not constantly calling
him “reverend Author” and “reverend Doctor.” Owen replies to this
insinuation with great spirit.
“Let this reverend author make what use of it he pleases, I can only tell him again, that these
insinuations become neither him nor any man professing the religion of Jesus Christ, or that has
any respect for truth or sobriety. Can any man think that in his conscience he gives any credit to
the insinuation which he makes here, that I should thank him for calling me reverend Author or
reverend Doctor? As for the title of reverend, I give him notice that I have very little valued it
ever since I considered Luther’s saying: ‘Nunquam periclitatur religio nisi inter
Reverendissimos.’ So that, as to me, he may forbear it for the future, and call me as the Quakers
do, and it will suffice.
146
As for that title of Doctor, it was conferred on me by the University in my absence, and against
my consent, as they expressed it under their public seal. Nor does anything but gratitude and
respect toward them make me once own it. Freed from that obligation, I would never use it
again. Nor did I use it until some were offended by me, and blamed me for my neglect of [these
220
titles].”
Cromwell having dissolved the Long Parliament, found it necessary to
call another in the year 1654. A writ was issued to the University of
Oxford to choose but one burgess to represent it; on the 27th of June, Dr.
Owen was chosen the representative. The Parliament met on September
221
3rd, but he sat only for a short time, his election being questioned by
the Committee of privileges — on account of his being in the ministry.
This part of Owen’s conduct occasioned some infamous
misrepresentations. Cawdry asserted, that “when he was chosen a
Parliament-man, he refused to answer whether he was a minister or not;”
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, and
declares that “rather than be put aside because he was a theologist, he
renounced his orders, and pleaded that he was a mere layman,
 223
notwithstanding he had actually been created D.D. the year before.”
This is carrying the matter to the climax of absurdity and villainy. To
what purpose did they ask the Vice-chancellor of Oxford and Dean of
Christ Church, whether he was a minister? Did not all the world know it?
147
Was it practicable for the Doctor to renounce his profession though he
had been disposed? Need we then wonder at his indignant reply to
Cawdry? “My refusal to answer whether I was a minister or not, on any
occasion in the world, is purum putum mendacium — a scandalous,
malignant falsehood. So it is no truer that it was vox populi at Oxford, as
224
pretended.” And having occasion to refer to it again, he says, “It is
notoriously untrue, and so remote from anything that would give a
pretence or colour to it, that I question whether Satan has impudence
225
enough to own himself as its author.” The anonymous writer of the life
of South, published in 1721, repeats the story of Owen’s renunciation. He
ascribes to Dr. South the merit of “so managing matters with the doctors,
bachelors of divinity, and masters of arts, and the electors, that he was
returned with great difficulty. And after sitting a few days, he had his
election declared null and void because his renunciation was not reputed
226
to be valid.”
What the Doctor’s reasons were for wishing to become a member of
Parliament cannot now be ascertained. He probably considered himself
as holding no clerical office during his Vice-chancellorship. He might
think it was as lawful for him to be a member of Parliament, as to hold a
civil office in Oxford; and that in this situation he might be able to render
important service to the university, which then stood in need of all the
friends it could muster. As only one member was to be chosen, he was
perhaps the fittest person at the time to represent that learned body; and
in all probability he was urged to accept the situation, both by Cromwell
and the electors, till he could not refuse.
148
Those who reproached him for it ought to have shown that there was
something unlawful in it, or that he acted from improper motives. Those
who claim a bishop’s seat in the house of lords, can have no religious
scruples at a minister going into Parliament. And I need not hesitate to
assert that comparatively few of the ecclesiastical legislators of Great
Britain have been fitter for the office than Dr. John Owen.
Oliver presented his Instrument of Government to this assembly — “A
creature of Cromwell’s, and his council of officers,” says Neal, “and not
227
drawn up by a proper representative of the people.” This is not very
consistent with that historian’s exclamation against the defectiveness of
the “Independents’ instrument of government under Cromwell.” It could
not be the work of the Independents unless they are to be made
accountable for everything done by Cromwell and his officers, which
would be manifestly unjust. This Instrument provided that,
“Those who profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing in judgment from the doctrine,
worship, or discipline publicly proposed, shall not be restrained from, but shall be protected in
the profession of their faith, and the exercise of their religion, so as they do not abuse this liberty
to the civil injury of others, and to the actual disturbance of the public peace on their parts —
provided this liberty is not extended to popery or prelacy, or to those who, under a profession of
228
Christ, propose and practice licentiousness.”

149
This act of toleration, though by no means perfect, reveals considerable
enlargement of mind. It would have done well for the country, if the
proceedings of its Parliaments had always been as liberal. Popery and
prelacy were excluded, not as religious so much as political systems. And
because their adherents were constantly plotting against the Protector’s
government, and even in regard to them, the laws were more in
229
terrorem, than intended for execution.
In the debate which arose in Parliament on the article of this Instrument
just quoted, it was contended that the clause, “those who profess faith in
God by Jesus Christ,” was designed to limit the toleration to those who
were agreed on the fundamentals of Christianity. This, I apprehend,
Oliver had not contemplated, because a difference in doctrine is the first
thing expressed in the article; and the proceedings of the house on this
subject seem, by no means, to have gratified him. In whatever way they
understood it, it cannot be doubted that the most unrestricted liberty of
conscience was intended by the Protector. But in consequence of the
debate in the house, a committee of fourteen was appointed to consider
what were fundamentals; and that committee was empowered to name a
divine each, who would meet and return their opinion on this delicate
subject. The ministers who met were Drs. Owen, Goodwin, and Cheynel;
Messrs. Marshal, Reyner, Nye, Simpson, Vines, Manton, Jacomb, and
Baxter. After several meetings, they at last returned a list of sixteen
articles in a paper endorsed, “The principles of faith, presented by
Messrs. Thomas Goodwin, Nye, Simpson, and other ministers, to the
Committee of Parliament for religion, by way of explanation to the
230
proposal for propagating the gospel.”
150
Baxter gives a long and tiresome account of this meeting, ascribing the
whole work of it to Dr. Owen, assisted by Nye, Goodwin, and Simpson.
He assures us there was a great deal of wrangling of which, by his own
account, he was a principal cause. He says, “Dr. Owen was more hotly
and better befriended in the assembly than himself;” and that “he was
then under great weakness, and soporous (a scotomatic illness of his
231
head).” He evidently laboured under his constitutional malady, a
232
disputatious pertinacity. What is surprising is that, professing all his
life to be a lover of peace and unity, he takes credit for defeating the
unanimity that would have prevailed had he not been there!
Neal appears to have misunderstood the nature of this meeting, and the
design of the framers of these articles. He speaks as if the object of the
divines had been to legislate on the subject of toleration, or to direct the
Parliament how far it might proceed in granting liberty of conscience. But
the fact was simply this: they were called together by a committee of the
house, to state what, in their opinion, was fundamental or essential in
Christianity. They had nothing to do with the propriety of tolerating those
who differed from them on the points of their declaration. The use to be
made of their paper was no concern of theirs. And they conscientiously
adhered to the question proposed to them, as they gave no opinion of any
kind on the subject of religious liberty. Instead of this, we should
conclude from the title of the document, that it was intended for a
different purpose — something about the propagation of the gospel.
Where then is the occasion for Neal’s language about the narrow list of
fundamentals given by the Independents?
151
So far from it being narrow, it seems to me to be very wide — almost as
general as the Apostles’ Creed. I believe most Christians would consider
that it contained rather too little than too much. “It appears by these
articles,” Neal says, “that these divines intended to exclude not only
Deists, Socinians, and Papists, but Arians, Antinomians, Quakers, and
others.” Exclude from what? Not from civil privileges, but from holding
the essentials of Christianity. “Wise and good men fall into such
difficulties when they usurp the kingly office of Christ, and pretend to
restrain that liberty which is the birthright of every reasonable creature.”
233

The meeting under consideration, fell into no difficulties, usurped no part

of the office of Christ, and did nothing to restrain the liberty of others. “It
is an unwarrantable presumption for any number of men to declare what
is fundamental in the Christian religion, any further than the Scriptures
234
have expressly declared it.” If this sentence means that the Bible alone
can decide what is necessary to salvation; no Christian doubts it. But if it
means that we have no right to declare what, in our opinion, must be
believed in order to be saved, it is patently absurd. Every man who
preaches the gospel is called to declare this. Every society of Christians
has a professed or implied belief on the subject. And there can be no
impropriety in our giving an answer, in any circumstances, to what is
asked of us respecting it. “Besides,” adds Neal, “Why should the civil
magistrate protect none but those who profess faith in God by Jesus
Christ?” I also ask, why? The ministers were not called to answer that
question. Who proposed this as the law of toleration? According to our
235
historian himself, it was Cromwell and his officers, or the Parliament!
152
Thus the main proof which has been alleged about the intolerant conduct
of Independents when possessed of power, completely fails — as this
meeting and its acts had nothing to do with determining the bounds
either of civil or religious liberty. And whatever its views or conduct were,
it should be noted that the majority of the ministers were Presbyterians.
It will not be supposed that these remarks are intended to vindicate the
propriety of putting religious liberty on the footing of even the most
enlarged interpretation of Oliver’s Instrument. Christianity should not,
either in part or in whole, be made the test of civil privileges. It never was
intended for any such purpose. And such a use of it is only calculated to
corrupt it, by inducing hypocritical professions of belief, and discouraging
free enquiry.
At the end of 1653, Owen, Goodwin, Caryl, Lockyer, and others, had been
presented to Parliament, and were to be sent as commissioners in a
circuit, in groups of three, for ejecting and settling ministers according to
the rules then prescribed. But this project not taking effect,
Commissioners for the approval of public preachers were afterwards
appointed, of whom Owen was one. And in 1654 he was one of the
Commissioners appointed in every county for ejecting scandalous,
236
ignorant, and insufficient ministers and school-masters. He was, about
the same time, appointed one of the visitors for the regulation of the
university of Oxford, and for the promotion of the interests of learning in
237
it. These various appointments must have greatly increased his labours,
and multiplied the opportunities of adversaries to annoy and reproach
him.
153
The Tryers, as they were called, were thirty-eight in number, consisting of
Independents, Presbyterians, and Baptists. They were to enquire
particularly “into the grace of God in the candidate, his holy and
unblameable conversation, also into his knowledge, and utterance, and
fitness to preach the gospel.” Whatever may be thought of the
government appointing such a board, or of some individuals forming part
of it, every Christian will admit that ministers of the gospel ought to
possess the above qualifications. The greatest injury to the church of
Christ has arisen from the introduction of ignorant and ungodly men into
the office of the ministry. In general, the door has been too wide rather
than too narrow, and attention to personal or literary qualifications has
often superseded due regard to the more important acquirements of a
moral and spiritual nature.
Fault with the conduct of the Tryers has been found in various quarters.
Neal exclaims against their arbitrary proceedings; and yet, when he
comes to detail those proceedings, his account amounts almost to a
complete vindication. Their conduct was not, probably, more arbitrary
than might be expected from the general nature of their instructions, and
the peculiarity of their business. They have been burlesqued, as
endeavouring
To find, in lines of beard and face.
The physiognomy of grace;
And by the sound of twang and nose
If all be sound within disclose.
The most grievous complaints have been uttered, and the most
extravagant expressions of astonishment poured out, because they were
so fanatical as to speak about grace, regeneration, and experience, as if
these were the last things that should be spoken of to ministers of the
gospel!
154
I am far from vindicating all their proceedings. They had a difficult task
to perform, and they had to deal with persons of very different principles,
both in religion and in politics; — and those who were not approved of
would, of course, complain. Had this power been lodged with the bishops
of those times, or their chaplains, or with the high Presbyterians, would
they not have had their shibboleth, for which ill-natured men might have
238
called them a holy inquisition?
We are able to give a very favourable specimen of the conduct of Dr.
Owen, as one of the ejecting Commissioners, in his behaviour toward the
celebrated Dr. Pococke. He was Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who was
brought before the Commissioners for the county of Berks, on account of
a living he had there; and he was likely to receive hard measure from
them. Owen’s views of the conduct of these Commissioners will appear
from an extract of a letter to Secretary Thurloe.
“There are in Berkshire a few men of mean quality and condition — rash, heady, enemies of
tithes — who are the Commissioners for ejecting ministers. They alone sit and act, and are at this
time casting out, on slight pretences, very worthy men. One especially they intend to eject next
week, whose name is Pococke, a man as unblameable in conduct as any that I know living; of
repute for learning throughout the world, being the Professor of Arabic in our university. So
that, they exceedingly exasperate all men, and provoke them to the height. It anything could be
239
done to cause them to suspend acting till this storm is over, I cannot but think it would be
240
good service to his Highness and the Commonwealth.”
155
Not satisfied with writing to Thurloe, and accompanied by Doctors Ward,
Wilkins, and Wallis, Owen repaired to the spot where the Commissioners
met, where they all laboured with much earnestness to convince them of
the strange absurdity of their conduct. Dr. Owen, in particular, with some
warmth, endeavoured to make them sensible of the infinite contempt and
reproach which would certainly fall upon them, when it would be said
that they turned out a man for insufficiency, whom all the learned — not
only of England, but of all Europe — so justly admired for his vast
knowledge and extraordinary accomplishments. Being one of the
Commissioners appointed by the Act, he added, that he had now come to
deliver himself, as well as he could, from a share in such disgrace, by
protesting against a proceeding so strangely foolish and unjust. The
Commissioners being very much mortified at the remonstrances of so
many eminent men, especially of Dr. Owen, in whom they had a
particular confidence, thought it best to put an end to the matter, and
241
discharged Pococke from further attendance.
The conduct of Mr. Howe toward Fuller the historian, in somewhat
similar circumstances, was no less creditable to his judgment and
242
liberality. So much for the arbitrary proceedings of some of the
Independent Tryers. If we may judge from the results, the necessity of a
measure, and the wisdom of its management, then we would form a very
favourable opinion of this appointment of the Protector’s.
156
Baxter, who was not one of the Commissioners himself, nor any friend of
their proceedings, acknowledges that
“They saved many a congregation from ignorant, ungodly, drunken teachers — the sort of men
who intended no more in the ministry than to say a sermon, as readers say their common
prayers, and so patch a few good words together to talk the people asleep on Sunday; and the
rest of the week go with them to the ale-house, and harden them in their sin — and the sort of
ministers who either preached against a holy life, or preached as men who were never
acquainted with it — all those who used the ministry as a common trade to live by, and were
never likely to convert a soul — all these they usually rejected, and in their stead they admitted
any who were able, serious preachers, and lived a godly life, of whatever tolerable opinion they
were. So that, though many of them were somewhat partial to the Independents, Separatists,
Fifth Monarchy men, and Anabaptists, and against the Prelatists and Arminians — yet, so great
was the benefit above the hurt which they brought to the church, that many thousands of souls
blessed God for the faithful ministers whom they let in, and grieved when the Prelatists
243
afterwards turned them out again.”
In the year 1655, considerable dissatisfaction with Cromwell’s
government existed in different parts of the country; a day was appointed
for a general uprising by the royalists. In the West, the conspiracy
actually broke out, headed by the unfortunate Colonel Penruddock who,
with several others, shortly after suffered for their conduct.
157
The vigilance and determination of the Protector and his friends crushed
this dangerous conspiracy. On this occasion, the Vice-chancellor of
Oxford exerted all his energy and influence to preserve the public peace,
and to support the existing government. In the same letter to Secretary
Thurloe, from which I made an extract, he says,
 “We are here in a quiet condition. I have raised, and now well-settled, a troop of sixty horsemen,
besides their officers. The town also has raised some footmen for their defence. We have some
persons in custody on very good grounds of suspicion, and will yet secure them. There is much
riding to and fro in the villages near us; but as yet, I cannot learn any certain place of their
meeting; so I keep a continual guard, and hope some good service has been effected by arming
ourselves. The (Gentlemen) of the county have met; they are backward and cold; but something
we have gotten them to engage for, is toward raising some troops. If I had a blank commission or
two for horsemen, I could on good grounds, I suppose, raise a troop in Berkshire. Various good
ministers and others have been with me to assist you to that purpose. If you think it necessary to
have the work go on, as surely it is necessary to engage men in such a city as this, in which self-
preservation urges on the public interest; pray, send me down one or two commissions to that
244
purpose.”
The newspapers of the period record that Dr. Owen had been very active
in securing the county, and that the university had raised a troop of
horsemen under Captain Kent.
158
Foreign as such pursuits must have been to his habits, and disagreeable
to his feelings (as they could not fail to be), they reveal his active
disposition, and his public spirit. And they show how determinedly he
endeavoured to discharge the trust committed to him as Vice-chancellor
of the university. They afforded, however, a most gratifying opportunity
for his adversaries to abuse him, and were long-after remembered to his
disadvantage.
“When those loyal gentlemen of the west,” says a most virulent reviler, “made an attempt to
redeem their native soil from the bondage of their Cromwellian taskmasters, how did this
Cromwellian Doctor, like a Major-General rather than Vice-chancellor, carry God in his
245
scabbard, and religion at his sword’s point? How did he make his beadles exchange their
staves for fighting irons? How did he turn his gown into a cloak, and vaunt it with white powder
in his hair, and black in his pocket, threatening everyone with disaffection to the government,
who would not join with him in his designs? And so he rode up and down like a spiritual
246
Abaddon, breathing out nothing against those brave souls but rage and fury, slaughter and
247
blood.”
The Doctor repelled the charge of carrying a sword, by coolly declaring
248
that, “to his remembrance, he never wore a sword in his life.”
About this time, he corresponded with Thurloe, and Cromwell himself,
regarding his neighbour, Mr. Union Crooke, of Merton in Oxfordshire, a
man whose son was very active in Penruddock’s affair; for which his
father was made a Sergeant at Law, and he was liberally rewarded
249
himself.
159
In a letter to Thurloe, dated May 29, 1655, the Doctor refers to a
conversation with the Secretary respecting this gentleman. He speaks of
him as worthy of a trust, the nature of which he does not explain, though
I apprehend it refers to his being made Sergeant. For, in a letter to
Cromwell dated October 2, 1655, he speaks of Crooke in this capacity. He
refers to the Protector’s favour toward him not long before, in his request
on his behalf. And he includes a petition that, as Cromwell was about to
make some new judges, Crooke he might be thought of for that
250
employment, as a man of abilities and integrity. I do not find that
Crooke was made a judge; but the correspondence shows the habits of
intimacy on which Owen lived with the Protector, and the influence he
was supposed to possess.
On the 12th of December this same year, the Doctor was called to attend a
conference respecting the Jews. It was held in a drawing-room at
Whitehall, in the presence of his Highness, who laid before the council
the proposal of Manasseh Ben Israel, a Spanish Jew residing in Holland.
This man asked permission for his countrymen to settle and trade in
England. The meeting consisted of two judges, seven citizens of London,
among whom were the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, and fourteen
divines, among whom were Dr. Owen, Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Whichcot, Dr.
Cudworth, Mr. Bridge, and Mr. Craddock. The judges considered their
toleration merely as a point of law, and declared they knew of no law
against it; and that if it were thought useful to the state, they would
advise it. The citizens viewed it in a commercial light and, because they
probably had different trade interests, they were divided in their opinions
about its utility.
160
Both these, however, dispatched the matter quickly. But most of the
divines violently opposed it, by text after text, for four whole days.
Cromwell was at length wearied, and told them he had hoped they would
throw some light on the subject to direct his conscience. But instead of
this, they had rendered it more obscure than before. He desired,
therefore, no more of their counsels; but lest he do anything rashly, he
251
begged a share in their prayers. Sir Paul Ricaut, who was then a young
man, pressed in among the crowd, and said he never heard a man speak
252
so well in his life, as Cromwell did on that occasion.
What part Owen took in this debate we are not informed; but as some of
the ministers would have admitted the Jews into England on certain
conditions, it is very probable that he was of this number. The Protector’s
views of the subject, on religious grounds, were far from fanatical —
“Since the conversion of the Jews was promised in Scripture, he did not
know but that the preaching of the gospel in England, without idolatry or
superstition, might be conducive to it.” The project failed, but Manasseh
received £200 from the public purse for his trouble.
On the 17th of September, 1656, the Doctor preached at the opening of a
new Parliament, which the Protector had called for the purpose of
confirming his title to the supreme magistracy, in a more constitutional
manner than had yet been done. The Sermon was published with a
dedication, as usual, to Cromwell and the Parliament, under the title of
“God’s work in founding Zion, and his people’s duty thereupon.”
161
In the course of it, Owen expresses his feelings on account of the
deliverance which God had wrought for his people very strongly.
“The people of God in this nation,” he exclaims, “were despised, but are now in esteem; they
were under subjection to cruel taskmasters — some in prisons, some banished to the ends of the
earth — merely for the worship of their God. The consciences of all were imprisoned, while
iniquity and superstition were established by law. But now, the imprisoned are set at liberty; the
banished are recalled. Those who lay among the pots have received dove’s wings; conscience is
no more imprisoned; their sacrifices are not mixed with their blood; nor do they meet with
trembling to worship God. O you messengers of the nations, this is what the Lord has done!”
Every real Christian must have exulted at the revolution in religion which
had taken place; and must have been grateful to the instruments by which
it had been effected, whatever were their views or characters. Owen’s
enlightened ideas of religious liberty are stated with great precision in
this discourse. After noting what various parties wished the magistrate to
do, he thus states his own wishes:
“That the people of God be delivered from the hands of their cruel enemies, that they may serve
the Lord all the days of their lives; — that notwithstanding their differences, they may live
peaceably one with, or at least, by another, enjoying rule and promotion as they are fitted for
employment, and as he gives promotion in whose hand it is; — that godliness and the love of our
Lord Jesus Christ be preserved, protected, and secured from the hand of violence upon it.”
I question, whether the most enlightened advocate of the duties of
government, and the liberties of men, could state the subject in more
appropriate language than this.
162
The government of Britain has not yet granted all that the enlarged mind
253
of Owen grasped. But in what has been obtained, an earnest is enjoyed
of the ultimate triumph of principle and liberty; — when test, and
corporation, and even toleration acts, shall all be abrogated; — when civil
distinctions, on account of religious differences, shall forever cease; —
when the particular privileges of ecclesiastical corporations shall be set
aside, and the names of churchman and dissenter shall only occur in the
vocabularies of obsolete terms; — when the great body politic shall
consist of men of every religious name, united by the grand and
harmonizing principle that conscience is uncontrollable by human laws,
and that to worship God according to its dictates, is the undoubted,
unalienable, and most sacred right of every rational creature.
Owen again preached before Parliament on October 30th following, being
a day of humiliation. The discourse, for which he received the thanks of
the house by Major-General Kelsey, is entitled, “God’s presence with a
people is the spring of their prosperity.” I do not observe anything
particularly deserving of notice in it, except his pleading very earnestly
towards its conclusion — for the protection and freedom of the people of
God, of all parties; and directing the attention of Parliament to the
religious state of Wales,
“Where the unhappiness of almost all men running into extremes, has disadvantaged the
progress of the gospel, when we had great ground for the expectation of better things. Some are
still zealous for the traditions of their fathers, and almost nothing will satisfy them, except their
old road of beggarly readers in every parish. Others again, perhaps out of a good zeal, have
harried the people with violence beyond their principles, and maybe sometimes beyond the
truth. Between complaints on one side and the other, between misguided zeal and formality, the
whole work is almost cast to the ground. The business of Zion, as such, is scarcely cared for by
254
any.”
163
The Parliament had not been inattentive to the interests of religion in
Wales; though its measures may not always have been productive of
lasting benefit to the people. The scandalous and ignorant clergy had
been ejected. Instead of them, one hundred and fifty good preachers were
planted in the thirteen Welsh counties, most of whom preached three or
four times a-week. In every market-town there was a schoolmaster, and
in most great towns two. Six preachers were appointed to itinerate in
each county, who were indefatigable in their labours; and the whole tithes
of the principality were devoted to these purposes, directed by act of
 255
Parliament. So that, considering the previous character of the clergy;
the mountainous and thinly peopled state of the country; and the
difficulty of finding suitable persons who could instruct the people in
Welsh — perhaps all was done that human instrumentality at the time
could effect.
For a series of years, the love of rule and of power had been continually
increasing in the breast of Oliver Cromwell. The dissolution of the long
Parliament, the calling and dispersing of other packed assemblies, and
the frequent changes of the form of government, all seem to have been
preparatory to his laying hands on the regal sceptre, and assuming the
forms and titles of majesty. His last Parliament was undoubtedly called
for the purpose of sanctioning this concluding act of his ambition.
164
From the manner in which it had been collected, it was easily managed;
and upon the proposal being made that the Protector should have the
crown with the title of king, it was soon agreed to by a considerable
majority. A committee was appointed to persuade him to accept, which
presented the offer of the crown in the form of a petition, on the fourth of
April. There was another party, however, more difficult to manage than
the Parliament, and whose sanction was then fully more necessary. This
was composed chiefly of the officers of the army. Among them were
General Fleetwood and Colonel Desborough. The former was son-in-law,
and the latter brother in-law, to the Protector. They were most decidedly
opposed to this measure. And from their influence in the army, Cromwell
found it necessary to court their favour. Still, nothing was likely to
prevent his taking this foolish step. He had actually appointed the house
to meet him for this purpose on the following morning, when an
occurrence took place which forever blasted his ambitious design.
Having met Colonel Desborough in the park, Cromwell acquainted him
with his resolution — upon which Desborough frankly told him that he
gave him and his family up for lost, and that he would not continue to act
with him any longer. When Desborough went home, he found Colonel
Pride, whom Cromwell had knighted with kindling, to whom he imparted
the information he had received.
Pride exclaimed, “He shall not.”
“But how will you prevent it,” rejoined Desborough.
“Get me a petition drawn up and I will blast it,” was his reply.
On this, they both went to Dr. Owen; and having acquainted him with
what was going on, they persuaded him to draw up the petition for them.
165
Next morning it was presented to the house by Colonel Mason and some
other officers, and set forth,
“— that they had risked their lives against monarchy, and were still ready to do so, in defence of
the liberties of the nation — that having observed in some men great endeavours to bring the
nation again under the old servitude, by pressing their General to take upon himself the title and
government of king, in order to destroy him and weaken the hands of those who were faithful to
the public — they, therefore, humbly desired they would discountenance all such persons and
endeavours, and continue steadfast to the old cause.”
This petition being supported by the majority of the officers in town, at
once involved the house and Cromwell in the utmost perplexity. But that
sagacious politician, upon discovering how things were likely to go,
declined with great ostentation of self-denial, the title of king. He
accepted his pomp and power under the less common, but expressive
256
designation of PROTECTOR.
This disappointment was not likely to be forgotten by Cromwell, either in
regard to the officers, or to Owen. The Doctor was most probably applied
to, because the officers considered him better qualified than themselves
for drawing up a petition. He would frame the petition to suit the
sentiments of the persons who were to subscribe it; and it must not,
therefore, be considered a proper index of his own views. At same time,
there can be little doubt that he agreed with them in the main. He must
have dreaded the consequences of this step, both to Cromwell and to the
country. By this time, he was probably suspicious of the Protector’s
ambition, and must have deprecated the return of former scenes of
tyranny, or of civil commotion.
166
Whatever his reasons were, his conduct did not advance his interest at
court; for from this time, he does not appear to have been about
Cromwell much. At his inauguration into the office of Protector, we find
Lockyer preaching, and Manton, a Presbyterian, praying — the leading
Independents either not choosing, or not being chosen, to officiate at that
mock coronation. Cromwell’s death took place in the same year, and
Owen declares that he had not seen him for a long time before. All these
are evidences of declining favour; but the most conclusive proof soon
followed. On the third of July, the Protector resigned the Chancellorship
of Oxford; on the eighteenth, his son Richard was chosen successor. Six
weeks after, he dismissed Owen from the office of Vice-Chancellor, and
appointed in his place. Dr. John Conant, a Presbyterian, and Rector of
257
Exeter college.

CHAPTER VII.
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 of insubordination
which prevailed in it — Learned men in office during his Vice-Chancellorship — Independents —
Presbyterians — Episcopalians — Persons of note then educated — Writers, Philosophers, and
Statesmen — Dignitaries of the Church — Dissenters — Royal Society then founded in Oxford —
Clarendon’s testimony on the state of learning in it at the Restoration — Owen’s management of
the several parties — Conduct to the Students — Preaching — The University presents a volume of
poetic addresses to Cromwell — Owen’s address — Trick played by Kinaston at Oxford — Owen’s
conduct toward two Quakers — His views of the Lord’s Prayer misrepresented — Refuses to swear
by kissing the book — Wood’s account of his dress and manners -Extract from Evelyne — Owen
addresses the new Chancellor, Richard Cromwell — Takes leave of the University.
We now return to take a view of the university of Oxford during this
period, and of the conduct of Dr. Owen as Vice-chancellor. This
celebrated seat of learning had been in the most deplorable
circumstances during the civil wars. The colleges and halls had gone to
ruin; five of them were perfectly deserted; some of them were converted
258
into magazines, and the rest were in a most shattered state; the
259
chambers were filled with officers and soldiers or let out to townsmen.
There was little or no education of youth; poverty, desolation, and
plunder — the sad effects of war — were to be seen in every corner; the
bursaries were emptied of the public money, the plate melted down for
the king’s service, and the colleges involved in debts they were not able to
260
discharge.
168
Such was the wretched state of the university, when Oxford fell into the
hands of the Parliament in 1646. It was not till after a most determined
struggle of two years from the Royalists being subdued, that the heads of
houses who had espoused the royal cause, allowed the Presbyterian
clergy, appointed to fill their places, to obtain possession of them. It may
easily be supposed that during this violent contest, little attention would
be paid by either party to the interests of the university, or to the
promotion of learning. When the Presbyterians did obtain the upper
hand, a long time must have elapsed before they could bring matters into
a semblance of order and management, due to the extreme confusion in
which they found everything, and the excited state of the public mind.
They were scarcely fixed in their chairs, when their conduct and
sentiments became disagreeable to the ruling powers, and other changes
were considered. Long before Dr. Reynolds and his brethren lost their
places, they must have foreseen the storm which was approaching, and
would naturally be discouraged from attempting what they otherwise
would have done for the good of the university.
Such was the unsettled state of Oxford, when Owen was appointed to fill
the office of Vice-chancellor. The chairs were chiefly occupied by those
who were secretly attached to royalty and Episcopacy, or by Presbyterians
whose aversion to Independents was not less inveterate; but they
submitted (from one motive or another) to the successive changes of that
fluctuating period. A few Independents were installed at the expense of
Presbyterian exclusions, which could not fail to excite the bitterest
enmity.
169
We may, therefore, give Owen full credit for accepting the honour with
reluctance and anxiety. To perform the part of a faithful and skilful pilot
in such a storm, to reduce such chaos into order, to plunge into the midst
of party dissatisfaction and cabal — to please those above and satisfy
those below — required no ordinary courage, self-denial, and ability. He
expressed his views and feelings in his first address to the learned body,
thus:
“I am well aware, Gentlemen of the University, of the grief you must feel that after so many
venerable names — reverend persons, depositaries, and preceptors of the arts and sciences —
the fates of the university should, at last, have placed as leader of the company, the one who
almost closes the rear. Nor, indeed, is this state of affairs (of whatever kind it may be) very
agreeable to myself, since I am compelled to regard my return to my beloved mother, after a
long absence, as a prelude to the duties of a laborious and difficult situation. But complaints are
not remedies for any misfortune. Whatever their situation, groans do not become grave and
honourable men. It is the part of an undaunted mind, to boldly bear up under a heavy burden.
261
For as the comic poet says: —
The life of man
Is like a game at tables. If the cast
Which is most necessary be not thrown,
That which chance sends, you must correct by art. — Coleman.
The academic vessel, alas! has been too long tossed by storms, and almost entirely abandoned by
all those whose more advanced age, longer experience, and well-earned literary titles excited
great and just expectations. And so, I have been called upon by the partiality and too good
opinion of Him whose commands we must not question, and with whom the most earnest
entreaties to be excused were urged in vain — and also by the consenting suffrage of this senate.
170
Therefore, although there is, perhaps, no one more unfit, I approach the helm. I both know and
lament in what times, what manners, what diversities of opinion (dissentions and calumnies
everywhere raging in consequence of party spirit), what bitter passions and provocations, what
pride and malice, our academic authority has occurred. Nor is it only the character of the age
that distracts us, but another calamity to our literary establishment, which is daily becoming
more conspicuous: namely, contempt for the sacred authority of law and the reverence due our
 ancestors; the watchful envy of malignants; the despised tears and sobs of our almost-dying
262
mother — the University (with the eternal loss of the class of gownsmen, and no small risk of
losing the whole institution); the detestable audacity and licentiousness (manifestly Epicurean)
which is beyond all bounds of modesty and piety, and in which, alas! too many of the students
indulge. Am I then able, in this tottering state of all things, to apply a remedy to this
complication of difficulties, in which so many and such great heroes have laboured in vain, in
the most favourable times? I am not so self-sufficient, Gentlemen. If I were to act the part of
someone who is so impertinently disposed to flatter himself — indeed, if the slightest thought of
such a nature were to enter my mind — I should be quite displeased with myself. I do not live so
far from home, nor am I such a stranger to myself (I do not use my eyes in the manner of
witches) as not to know well, how scantily I am furnished with learning, prudence, authority,
and wisdom.
171
Antiquity celebrated Lucullus as a prodigy in his nature. Though unacquainted with even the
duty of a common soldier, he became an expert General without any difficulty. So that, the man
the city sent out inexperienced in fighting, the army received as a complete master of the art of
war. Be of good courage, Gentlemen, I bring no prodigies. I have retreated from the obscurity of
a rural situation, from the din of arms, from journeys for the sake of the gospel into the most
distant parts of this island, and also beyond the sea, from the bustle of the court. I have come
here, unskilful also — unskilful in the government of a university.
“What madness is this, then?” you will say. “Why have you undertaken an office which you are
unable to execute, far less to adorn? You have judged very badly for yourself, the university, and
this venerable senate.” Softly, my hearers, neither hope nor courage wholly fails one who is
swayed by the judgment, the wishes, the commands, the entreaties of the highest characters. We
are not ourselves the sources of worthy deeds of any kind. ‘He who supplies seed to the sower,’
and who, ‘from the mouths of infants has ordained strength,’ is able to graciously supply all
defects, whether caused from without or felt within. Therefore, destitute of any strength and
boldness of my own, and of any adventitious aid through influence with the university — so far
as I know, or have deserved. It nevertheless remains for me to commit myself wholly to Him,
‘who gives to all men liberally and does not upbraid.’ He has appointed an eternal fountain of
supply in Christ, who furnishes ‘seasonable help’ to every pious endeavour, unless our ‘littleness
of faith’ stands in the way. From there I must wait, and pray for light, for strength, and for
courage. Trusting, therefore, in his graciously promised presence, according to the state of the
times, and the opportunity which we have obtained through Divine Providence — conscious
integrity alone supplying the place of arts and of all embellishments — without either a
263
depressed or servile spirit, I address myself to this undertaking.”
172
No human powers, or influence could, in a short time, subdue the
formidable difficulties of such a situation. Bad habits of long standing
were not going to be quickly or easily corrected. Strong prejudices against
learning prevailed among some of the persons in power; and a
disposition to innovate and overturn, had gotten possession of the public
mind. A combination of firmness and prudence, of perseverance and
meekness, was particularly necessary in the existing state of both the
country and the university. An attempt was actually made to suppress the
universities entirely. Had it succeeded, it would have been attended with
the most ruinous consequences., Owen gives the following description of
this state of things, in a subsequent oration to the university. It at once
exhibits the miserable anarchy of the period, his love of learning, and his
indignant contempt for the fanatical desperadoes who had attempted to
re-barbarize the country.
“For the first two years we were a mere rabble, and a subject of talk to the rabble. Our critical
situation and our common interests were discussed in journals and newspapers, by the most
ignorant and despicable. Nor was any creature so miserably stupid as not to entertain fears or
hopes on account of our situation. Such was the will of the Sovereign Disposer of events, that
mortals might learn to value less whatever is mortal. Nor, perhaps, was it right that the
university alone should carry an uninjured flower, while empires and the highest ornaments of
the whole world were withering.
173
Meanwhile, very few ventured to heartily defend our cause, which should have been held sacred,
but was now exposed to the greatest danger. No indeed, such was the pitch of madness that to
have stood up for gownsmen, would have been reckoned a violation of religion and piety. On the
other hand, everything that is reprobated among respectable men, and that is really criminal,
was most plentifully charged on you every day by the malicious. Those who were more
favourably disposed towards us, were nevertheless so occupied with their own affairs that, being
deaf to our entreaties, and worn out with almost continual reproaches, all they could do was
mere conversation — contriving delays, or uttering pious sentiments that are usual concerning
the dead. Therefore, all our affairs being in confusion and in the most imminent danger,
destitute of all human aid, no marvel was achieved for us by the use of means — but our most
merciful Father looked down on us from heaven. After it had become only too manifest, to what
an extreme the audacity, rage, and ignorance of some would have gone — those from whom
better things might have been expected —that Governor of all things, quickly defeated all their
councils, and all their attempts. Those who three days before were most eagerly intent on
swallowing up our interests, were able to provide for their own interests only with difficulty. Of
that base attempt against the universities, which (with the anger and opposition of God) some
insane creatures in vain engaged in, nothing remains except the signal disgrace, and the never to
be forgotten insanity. However, as long as there are men who, with copious eloquence, are able
to transmit in eternal records the deeds and decrees of the brave and wise, together with the
264
infamy of the wicked, its authors will probably have reason to repent of that attempt.”
174
We may be assured that the exertions of the Vice-Chancellor were not
lacking to correct these evils, to maintain the rights of the University, and
to support its claims to the character of piety and learning. He set himself
vigorously to curb the licentiousness of the students. The state of morals
and order among them, with the degree of firmness and authority which
was requisite to keep them in subjection, may be judged by the following
incident. At a public Act, when a student of Trinity College was Terrae
265
filius, the Doctor, before the student began, told him that he would
have liberty to say what he pleased, provided he would abstain from
profaneness, obscenity, and personalities. The Terrae filius began but
soon transgressed all the rules which had been prescribed to him. The
Doctor several times desired him to forbear, but still he went on — till at
last, seeing he was obstinate, Owen sent the Beadles to pull him down.
Upon this, the scholars interposed and would not allow them to come
near him. The Doctor determined to pull him down himself. Though his
friends near him dissuaded him lest the scholars do him some mischief,
Owen said, “I will not see authority trampled on in this manner.” He
266
actually pulled him down, and sent him to Bocardo. The scholars,
267
standing aside, were surprised by his resolve. He took care, says the
writer of his life, to restrain the loose, to encourage the sober and pious,
and to prefer men of learning and industry. Under his administration, it
was visible that the whole body of the University was returned to good
order, and flourished with a number of excellent scholars, and persons of
268
distinguished piety. This will be apparent by a brief note of some of the
leading men among the Independents, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians,
then in the University.
175
John Owen was Vice-Chancellor for five years, and filled the next
important office in it for nine years. Dr. Thos. Goodwin, whom Wood
269
calls, “One of the Atlases and Patriarchs of Independency,” was
President of Magdalen College during the same period. As a theologian,
he was perhaps rather too high a Calvinist; but he was distinguished for
his piety, learning, and industry, as the five folio volumes of his
posthumous works bear ample testimony. He was thankful Owen was
270
President of St. John’s College. According to Wood, Goodwin had a
271
good command of the Latin tongue. He is described by Calamy as a
man of polite learning and excellent temper, who was admired for his
uncommon fluency, easiness, and sweetness, in all his compositions. Dr.
Owen said of him at his death in 1681, that “he had not left his equal
272
behind, for learning, religion, and good humour.” George Porter,
Fellow of Magdalen College, was Proctor of the University in the second
year of Owen’s Vice-Chancellorship, — a man of good learning, great
273
gravity, integrity, self-denial, and charity. Stephen Charnock was
Fellow of New College, and Senior Proctor in 1652. His work on the
 274
Divine Attributes is a sufficient proof of his talents, piety, and learning.
Samuel Lee, of Magdalen Hall, afterwards Fellow of Wadham College,
and Proctor in 1656, was the author of several learned and skilful works.
275

176
Afterwards, Lee became a member of Dr. Owen’s Church in London, to
which he dedicates his “Ecclesia Gemens” in 1667: “To the Holy Church
of Christ, lately walking in communion with Mr. Joseph Caryl, and now
with Dr. John Owen, before whom these exercises were handled, and to
whom they are now humbly presented, by theirs in the fellowship of the
gospel, S. L.” Ralph Button was Fellow of Merton College, and Canon of
Christ Church; an excellent scholar, says Baxter, but of greater excellence
276
as a most humble, worthy, godly man. He obtained his Fellowship of
Merton College, in 1633, entirely by his merit, which led Dr. Prideaux,
then Rector of Exeter College, to say that, “all who were elected beside
277
him were not worth a Button.” Jonathan Goddard, M. D. was Warden
of Merton College, a man of considerable celebrity as a Chemist and
Physician. He was a member of the Royal Society, Professor of Physic in
278
Gresham College, and the author of various Medical works. Theophilus
Gale, was Fellow of Magdalen College. Wood describes him as “a person
of great reading, an exact Philologist and Philosopher; a learned and
279
industrious person; His “Court of the Gentiles” alone furnishes
indubitable evidence of this. Thomas Cole was Principal of St. Mary’s
280
Hall, and Tutor to John Locke and other celebrated individuals. James
Baron was Divinity Reader of Magdalen College and (with Thankful
281
Owen) editor of Dr. Goodwin’s Posthumous works. Francis Howel was
Moral Philosophy reader to the University, and Principal of Jesus College.
282

177
Lewis Du Moulin, M. D. Cambden Professor of History, was a man of
great learning and acuteness, and author of many works. Wood says, “He
283
was a fiery, violent, and hot-headed Independent.” Mr. Francis
Johnson, Master of University College and one of Cromwell’s Chaplains,
284
was a man of learning and ability. I need not pronounce the praise Mr.
John Howe, Fellow of Magdalen College, as he is universally admitted to
 285
have been one of the greatest men this country ever produced. , Henry
Stubb, Second keeper of the Bodleian Library, afterwards celebrated for
his opposition to the Royal Society, was the most noted person of his age,
according to Wood. He adds,
“While he continued under-graduate, it was usual for him to discourse in the public Schools,
very fluently in the Greek tongue. But since the King’s restoration, we have had no such matter,
which shows that education and discipline were more severe then than after, when scholars
286
were given more to liberty and frivolous studies.”
Among the Presbyterians were Dr. Henry Wilkinson, Sr., Margaret
Professor of Divinity, a man of learning and public spirit; “A good
287
scholar, a close student, and an excellent preacher,” says Wood. Dr.
Henry Wilkinson, Jr., Principal of Magdalen Hall, and author of several
learned works. “He was ever courteous in speech and carriage,
communicative of his knowledge, generous and charitable to the poor,
288
and always minded the common good more than his own interests.”
178
Dr. Dan. Greenwood, Principal of Brazen Nose College, and formerly
Vice-Chancellor. Neal says he had the reputation of a profound scholar
and Divine; even Wood acknowledges that he was a severe and good
289
governor. Dr. Edmund Staunton, President of Corpus Christi College.
He was so well acquainted with the Scriptures that he was a living
Concordance to the Bible, distinguished no less for his amiable manners,
290
than for the extent of his learning and the greatness of his labours. Dr.
John Conant, Rector of Exeter College, of whom Prideaux (who loved a
291
pun, as we have already seen) said, Conanti nihil difficile. Dr Robert
Harris, President of Trinity College, a great Hebrew scholar,
292
Chronologist, and Historian. Dr. Henry Langley, Master of Pembroke
293
College, a solid and judicious Divine. Dr. Michael Roberts, whom Neal
294
speaks of as a good scholar. John Harmar, Regius Professor of Greek at
the University. He was a most excellent Philologist, a tolerable Latin Poet,
and the author of several learned works. He was ejected at the
295
Restoration.
Among the Episcopalians were Dr. Wilkins, Warden of Wadham College,
who married the sister of the Protector. After the Restoration, he was
made Bishop of Chester; a man justly celebrated for the extent of his
 296
philosophical knowledge, his excellent temper, and admirable abilities.
Dr. Seth Ward, afterwards Bishop of Exeter and Salisbury, a
297
timeserver, but the most noted Mathematician and Astronomer of his
298
age. Dr. John Wallis, who had been one of the clerks to the
Westminster Assembly, Savilian Professor of Geometry, and highly
299
celebrated as a Geometrician.
179
Dr. Pococke, Professor of Arabic, the greatest Oriental scholar of his time.
300 301
Dr. Zouch, Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, a distinguished civilian. Dr.
Langbain, Provost of Queen’s College and keeper of the records of the
University; an excellent linguist, philosopher, and divine; the friend of
302
Selden and of Pococke. He died in 1657, and was succeeded by Dr.
Barlow, who had been tutor to Owen and afterwards became Bishop of
Lincoln. Dr. Paul Hood, Rector of Lincoln College and Chancellor of the
303
University in 1660. Dr. Joshua Hoyle, Master of University College,
and King’s Professor of Divinity till his death in 1651. He was a person of
great reading and memory, and so devoted to his book that he was in a
304
great measure a stranger to the world. Dr. Thomas Hyde, afterwards
Professor of Arabic, and author of the learned work “De Religione
Persarum.” Mr. Samuel Clarke, another eminent Oriental scholar and one
of the most learned coadjutors of Walton in the Polyglot, then resided in
Oxford; as did the ingenious Robert Hooke, and the far celebrated Robert
Boyle, who took up his residence in Oxford as the only place in England
in which he could enjoy the benefit of learned society, and prosecute to
305
advantage, his philosophical studies.
Such were some of the celebrated men in the several parties who
flourished at Oxford during the commonwealth. It may be doubted
whether that university ever enjoyed a greater number of persons
eminent in their respective professions, or more distinguished for
character, talents, and learning. They afford indubitable evidence of the
truth of Thurloe’s account of Cromwell, that “he sought out men for
places, and not places for men;” a remark by no means generally
applicable to the kings of the earth.
180
The mere enumeration of their names is sufficient to show the justness of
the eulogium which the Vice-Chancellor pronounced on the worth and
celebrity of his colleagues in 1653. After speaking of their piety and
candour, he thus proceeds: —
“I could not help but give such a public testimony as a regard to truth, and to the duty required
from me, to these very respectable and learned men, heads of the Colleges, who have merited so
highly of the Church, for their distinguished candour, great diligence, uncommon erudition, and
blameless politeness. Many of them are zealously studious of every kind of literature; and many,
by their conduct in the early period of their youth, give the most promising hopes of future
merit. Thus, I would venture to affirm that no impartial and unprejudiced judge would believe
that our university has either been surpassed, or is now surpassed, by any society of men in the
world — either in point of proper respect and esteem for piety, for manners that are orderly and
worthy of the Christian vocation; and for a due regard to doctrines, arts, languages, and all
306
sciences that can adorn wise and good men appointed for the public good.”
181
Nor will our opinion of the learning and celebrity of Oxford during this
period be lowered, if we run over a few of the persons who then received a
part or the whole of their academic education. Some of them were
afterwards distinguished as philosophers and statesmen; some of them
rose to eminent situations in the church, while others adorned the
humbler ranks of the Non-conformist profession. Among the first class
were: — John Locke. William Penn, the celebrated Quaker and
307
enlightened founder and legislator of Pennsylvania. Dr. South, who
enjoyed in early life the friendship and patronage of Dr. Owen, though he
308
afterwards showed himself unworthy of both. Sir Thomas Millington,
309
M. D., who was afterwards Sedlyan Professor of Natural History. Dr.
Ralph Bathurst, afterwards President of Trinity College, and nominated
310
to be Bishop of Bristol. Joseph Williamson, afterwards Secretary of
311 312
State. Sir Christopher Wren, the celebrated architect. Dr. Daniel
313
Whitby, well known for his critical acumen and Anti-Calvinistic zeal.
Anthony A. Wood, the Oxford Antiquary, and the enemy of Puritans and
314
Dissenters; to whose learned pages we have often been indebted. Mr.
Joseph Glanville, a distinguished writer, a Fellow of the Royal Society,
315
and one of its most strenuous defenders. Launcelot Addison, father to
316
the celebrated Joseph Addison. He was Dean of Lichfield, and a man of
some eminence.
182
Henry Oldenburg, a Saxon; afterwards Secretary to the Royal Society. He
married the only daughter of John Dury, the indefatigable but
unsuccessful promoter of peace and concord among the Protestant
317
Churches. Learning, says Burnet, was then high at Oxford; chiefly the
study of the Oriental tongues, which was greatly raised by the Polyglot
Bible then expounded. They read the Fathers much there; and
318
Mathematics and the New Philosophy were in great esteem.
Many of the dignified clergy of the future reigns were also indebted to the
Oxford Professors of this period for their education. Such as: — Dr. Sprat,
319
Bishop of Rochester, and Historian of the Royal Society. Henry
Compton, successively a cornet in the guards, and Bishop of Oxford and
320
London; a determined supporter of the Revolution. Dr. Nathaniel
Crew, Bishop of Oxford and Durham, and Grand Inquisitor of the
Ecclesiastical Commission in the reign of James II, for which he obtained
321
a pardon from William, through the intercession of Dr. Bates. Dr.
Thomas Cartwright, Bishop of Chester, and another friend of James II,
322
with whom he afterwards fled to France. Samuel Parker, son of a
323
Puritan, and himself known as a grueller at Oxford, but afterward a
violent enemy of the Non-conformists and of Dr. Owen in particular. He
was made Bishop of Oxford by James II, and died more than suspected of
324
Popery. Ezekiel Hopkins, Bishop of Raphoe and Derry, a man of piety
and abilities, whose Exposition of the Commandments, and other works
325
are still popular.
183
Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and afterwards one of the
326
Nonjurors. Edward Fowler, Bishop of Glocester; he was raised to this
See for his active services at the Revolution. He was the author of several
327 328
works. Nicholas Stratford, Bishop of Chester. Capel Wiseman,
329
Bishop of Dromore, and Timothy Hall, Bishop of Oxford. George
Hooper, Bishop of St. Asaphs, and of Bath and Wells, the writer of several
330
learned works. Narcissus Marsh, Archbishop of Cashel, an amiable
and learned Prelate, and founder of a valuable library in Dublin
331
conducted on the most liberal principles. Robert Huntington, Bishop
of Kilmore, and distinguished for his attainments in Oriental literature.
332
Richard Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough, well known as the
author of a valuable work on Jewish Weights and Measures, and as the
333
translator of Sanchoniathon, besides other things. Francis Turner,
Bishop of Rochester and Ely, one of the seven who were sent to the Tower
by king James; but who was afterwards deprived, for not taking the oaths
334 335
to William. John Lloyd, Bishop of St. David’s. He was a great critic
in the Greek and Latin authors, but chiefly in the Scriptures — the words
and phrases of which he carried the most perfect concordance in his
memory. Wilkins used to say that he had the most learning in ready cash
of any he ever knew. He was a great chronologist and historian, and a
holy, humble, patient man, ever ready to do good when he had an
336
opportunity.
184
After noting some of the dignified clergy who were formed at Oxford and
Cambridge during this period, Burnet adds:
“These have been the greatest divines we have had these forty years. They contributed more than
can be well imagined to reform the way of preaching which — among the divines of England
before them — was over-run with pedantry. It was a great mixture of quotations from the
Fathers and ancient writers, a long opening of a text, with the concordance of every word in it,
and giving all the different expositions of it, with the grounds for them, concluding with some
337
very short practical applications according to the subject or occasion.”
Among the Dissenters who then received their education at Oxford, were:
— Mr. Thos. Cawton, afterwards minister of a church in Westminster, of
whom Granger says, “he had few equals in learning, and no superior in
338
piety.” Mr. Edward Bagshaw, second master of Westminster School,
while Busby was at its head; he had some heated controversy with him, as
well as with Baxter. He may be said to have lost his life for refusing to
take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, as he died from the effect of
imprisonment on this account. He was the friend of Dr. Owen, who gives
his character in the following epitaph which is inscribed on his tombstone
in Bunhill fields: —
"Here lies interred the body of Mr. Edward Bagshaw, minister of the gospel, who received from
God faith to embrace it, courage to defend it, and patience to suffer for it; when despised by
most and persecuted by many. Esteeming the advantages of birth, education, and learning, all
eminent in him, as things of worth, to be accounted loss for the knowledge of Christ. From the
reproaches of pretended friends, and persecutions of professed adversaries, he took sanctuary in
339
eternal rest, by the will of God, the 28th December, 1671.”
185
Mr. Philip Henry, well known as an eminent Non-conformist himself, and
as the father of the more celebrated Matthew Henry, the Commentator.
Dr. Owen used to speak highly of his exercises, when Dean of the College
of which Mr. Henry was a student. His account of the state of religion in
the University while he was at it, deserves to be quoted.
“He would often mention it, with thankfulness to God, what great helps and advantages he then
had in the University, not only for learning, but for religion and piety. Serious godliness was in
reputation, and besides the public opportunities they had, there were many of the scholars who
used to meet together for prayer, and Christian conference, to the great confirming of one
another’s hearts in the fear and love of God, and preparing them for the service of the church in
340
their generation.”
Mr. George Trosse, afterwards minister in Exeter, a man of unwearied
diligence, and considerable learning; he wrote several things which were
esteemed at the time, and left in six folio volumes a MS. Exposition of the
Assembly’s Catechism, which still exists. His account of religious
exercises in Oxford while he was a student, ought to be noted along with
Mr. Henry’s, as throwing light on the state of the University at this
period.
“He attended Dr. Conant’s lectures on Fridays, Dr. Harris’s catechetical lectures on Tuesdays,
the lecture kept up by the Canons of Christ Church on Thursdays, Mr. Hickman’s ministry at St.
Olaves, on the Lord’s days, and also heard many excellent sermons at St. Mary’s.
186
He received the sacrament sometimes from Mr. Hickman, and sometimes from Dr. Langley, the
Master of his College. He attended the repetition of Sermons and solemn prayer in the College
Hall, on the Lord’s days before supper. And he himself repeated sermons and prayed with a few
341
young men in his chamber, afterwards.”
John Wesley, ejected from Whitechurch in Dorsetshire, grandfather of
the celebrated founder of Methodism, to whom, while a student at
342
Oxford, Dr. Owen showed much kindness. It is worthy of remark that
both by his father and his mother, John Wesley, High Churchman though
he was, sprung from Dissenters: Dr. Annesley, his mother’s father, also
being a distinguished Non-conformist. Mr. John Quick, the well-known
author of the “Synodicon Gallia Reformata,” and of an unedited MS. in
three folio volumes, now in the Red Cross Street Library, containing lives
343
of eminent Protestant divines, both French and English. Joseph
Alleine, the ejected minister of Taunton; a learned and most devoted
man, justly celebrated for his “Call to the Unconverted;” which has gone
344
through innumerable editions. Thomas Tregrosse, the ejected minister
of Millar and Mabe in Cornwall, and distinguished for his apostolic
 345
labours in that country. John Troughton, blind from the fourth year of
his age; yet a good school divine, and metaphysician, and much
commended for his disputations when at the University. He wrote several
346
things on the Non-conformist controversy.
187
Charles Morton, afterwards a celebrated dissenting tutor at Newington
Green; but so infested with the Bishops’ processes, that he was obliged to
347
desist and retire to America, where he died. Samuel Tapper, the friend
of Bishops Wilkins and Ward; Thomas Danson, Samuel Blower, John
Spilsbury, and James Ashurst, all Dissenting ministers of some eminence,
348
besides many others too numerous to be named in this place.
It was during this time, and in Oxford also, that the foundation of the
Royal Society was laid; and some of its earliest and most distinguished
friends either belonged to the University, or received the elements of
349
their education there. These facts and testimonies show the flourishing
state of learning, religion, and science during the latter part at least of
Owen’s Vice-Chancellorship; and the merit which is due to him in
bringing this important seat of instruction out of the dangers to which, at
the beginning of his administration, it was evidently exposed — from
disorder, party spirit, and fanaticism. If any additional evidence is wanted
in support of our representations, and to expose the calumnies
propagated against Owen and his friends, it will be furnished by Lord
Clarendon whose impartiality on such a subject will not be questioned.
“It yielded,” says his Lordship, “a harvest of extraordinary, good, and sound knowledge, in all
parts of learning. And many who were wickedly introduced, applied themselves to the study of
learning and the practice of virtue. So that when it pleased God to bring King Charles II back to
his throne, he found that University abounding in excellent learning, and little inferior to what it
350
was before its desolation.”
188
The Doctor managed the different parties in the University by his
gentlemanly behaviour and humility; by his impartiality and
decisiveness; and by his generous disinterestedness. He was moderate
but firm, dignified, and at the same time full of gentleness. He gained the
good wishes of the Episcopalians by allowing a society of about three
hundred of them, who used the Liturgy, to meet every Lord’s day, over
against his own door. This was without disturbance, although they were
not legally tolerated. He secured the support and favour of the
Presbyterians by giving away most of the vacant benefices to persons of
that denomination; and he had the most intimate communication with
351
the Presbyterians of the University. Among the students, he acted as a
father. While he discountenanced and punished the vicious, he
encouraged and rewarded the modest and the indigent. He was
hospitable in his own house, generous to poor scholars, some of whom he
352
took into his family; others he assisted by presents of money.
Foreigners as well as natives experienced his bounty; for some of them —
by his favour and that of the Canons of Christ Church — were admitted to
353
free Commons, and the use of the Library. He was frequently
consulted by persons of distinction respecting their sons who were placed
at the University, and entreated to take an interest in them.
He set a personal example of fidelity and laborious diligence, which must
have been attended with the best effects; while his labours in the pulpit
aided the influence of his academic exertions. The University sermons on
the Lord’s day afternoons, used to be preached by the fellows of the
College in their course; but this being found not so much for edification,
the Vice-Chancellor and Dr. Goodwin divided the labour between them.
354

189
St. Mary’s is a large place of worship, and when the Doctor preached in it,
he was always attended by a numerous congregation. There was an
Independent church at Oxford at this time, of which Goodwin was pastor.
But I am unable to say whether Owen held any office in it. Cawdry asserts
355
that he laboured to gather a church in his own College — and if he did,
little doubt can be entertained of his success. But this is one of the
rumours which that violent writer delighted to spread; and it is therefore,
perhaps, entitled to little attention. Every second Sabbath, however, he
preached at Stadham, in the neighbourhood, where he bought some
property. Thus, between the University and the pulpit — not to speak of
other labours which remain to be brought forward — his hands must have
been very fully occupied.
During Owen’s Vice-Chancellorship, several incidents of a miscellaneous
nature occurred which serve to display his talents, or illustrate his
principles, or throw some light on the state of the times. I shall now
proceed to state these.
On the occasion of the peace which Cromwell concluded with the Dutch
in 1654, many addresses and poetic praises were presented to him.
Among the rest, the University of Oxford approached his highness with a
volume of poems in all languages, entitled “Musarum Oxoniensium
ELLIOFORIA,” etc. The dedication of this volume to Cromwell, by Dr.
Owen as Vice-Chancellor, is in prose. It is full of expressions of gratitude
to the Protector for his favour to the University. After this, we have some
verses by the Doctor, which deserve to be inserted, as they are the only
specimen existing of his poetic talents [orig. in Latin].
190
TO THE PROTECTOR.
Now peace returns in conquering Caesar’s train,
Who, kindling, dares not the poetic strain?
Ev’n I, devoted to severer themes.
Nor apt for song, or waking fancy’s dreams.
Struck with no vain poetic rage, aspire;
And, lo, an humble teacher, grasps the lyre:
Pregnant, I haste the tuneful throng to join;
For every muse, and every lyre is thine.
Had these fair scenes, unshelter’d by thine arm.
To discord fall’n a prey, and rude alarm,
Not thou, Augustus, wert secure from shame.
Unlike thyself and heedless of thy fame;
Oblivious shades had vail’d thy victories.
And peace appear’d inglorious to our eyes.
But sav’d by thee, the Muses yet survive.
And grateful come to bid thy glories live;
Peace is their song, — restor’d at thy command,
To bless the British plains and every land;
For thee, they twine the wreathe of peace, as due
To him who bears its name and emblem too.
Then gracious own, unconquer’d Prince, the lay
By which these friends of peace their homage pay. — Jo. Owen, Acad. Procan.

191
After the Vice-Chancellor, many members of the University follow in
order, with various degrees of poetic merit. Zouch, Dr. of Civil Law;
Harmar the Greek Professor, and Dr. Ralph Bathurst, names well known
in the republic of Letters, contribute to this collection, and join in
eulogising Cromwell. Besides these, we find Busby, who so long ruled in
Westminster School and complied with every change of government in
his time; and Locke, the friend of philosophy and liberty. Dr. South also
celebrates the praises of the Protector; and yet afterwards he could
represent him as a lively copy of Jeroboam, and say of the leading
ecclesiastics of the period, — “Latin was a mortal crime with them, and
Greek, instead of being owned as the language of the Holy Ghost, was
looked upon as the sin against it — so that, in a word, they had all the
356
confusion of Babel among them, without the diversity of tongues.” But
this was Dr. South. The volume is closed with some verses from the
printer, who styles himself Leonard Lichfield, Esq. Bedle of Divinity. He
lived to perform the same honour for Charles II, as did many of the
gentlemen mentioned above. Praise generally follows fortune; and he
357
who has the power of conferring benefits, will never lack flatterers. In
September 1654, a London merchant of the name of Kinaston came to
Oxford, with a long beard, pretending to be a patriarch, and said that he
wanted a model of the last reformation. A number of the Royalists
repaired to him to obtain his blessing, among whom were Henry Langley
and Harmar, who presented a formal Greek harangue to him. It turned
out, however, to be a trick of Lloyd’s, then a Tutor in Wadham College,
who afterwards became, successively, Bishop of St. Asaph, Lichfield, and
Coventry.
192
It was chiefly intended against the Royalists; but as Dr. Owen and some
of the Presbyterians had resorted to this Patriarch, or he to them, on
account of his wished-for model, they were so offended on discovering
358
the cheat, that Lloyd was obliged to abscond.
This year, also, Oxford was visited by two female Quakers who created
some disturbance, and were rather severely treated. Gough, the Historian
of the Friends, represents the Vice-Chancellor as needlessly interfering,
and sentencing the poor women to be punished, when the Mayor refused
to do so. But on referring to Sewel, who is quoted by Gough as his
authority, and who, being a Quaker himself, would not have concealed
Owen’s misconduct, the story appears in a different light. After
mentioning how the students had treated Elizabeth Heavens, and
Elizabeth Fletcher, he notes that they had been committed by two justices
to Bocardo, the common prison, for speaking in the church after the
minister had finished his discourse. A meeting of the Justices was
afterwards summoned, which the Mayor refused to attend, and “to which
the Vice-Chancellor also was required to come.” Owen charged them with
blaspheming the name of God, and abusing the Divine Spirit, to which
the Quakers replied. After they were asked to withdraw, the Justices
agreed that they should be whipped, which was executed accordingly next
359
morning. It appears from this account, that the Quakers were put in
prison for disturbing the public worship, or speaking where they had no
right to speak; that Dr. Owen, by virtue of the civil office which he held in
the University, was required to attend a meeting of the Justices to
consider their behavior; and that he made some remarks on their
religious sentiments and conduct. Sewel charges him with nothing more
than this.

193
However peaceable and respectable the Quakers are now, it must be
admitted, even by themselves, that this was by no means the case with
many of the early professors. They frequently disturbed the congregation
when engaged in Divine service — addressed those whom they opposed in
the most violent and abusive manner — outraged the bounds of modesty
and decency, and even endangered the lives of others. These were
proceedings which too fully justified the conduct of the public authorities
towards them; though many of the visionary offenders should have been
sent to a private cell rather than treated cruelly, or publicly exposed.
During Owen’s Vice-Chancellorship, a calumnious report was raised
about his blaspheming the Lord’s Prayer, and putting on his hat as a
mark of disapproval, when some preacher in Christ Church, concluded
the service by repeating it. This was carried so far that in 1660 Meric
Casaubon wrote a formal vindication of the Lord’s Prayer. As soon as the
report reached the Doctor, he published a solemn denial of its truth, both
in French and English. Notwithstanding this denial, the charge was
360
repeated and aggravated by Vernon in his infamous libel. This led
361
Owen to notice and repel it again in his letter to Sir Thomas Overbury.
After all this, Wood repeats the slander, and contradicts the Doctor’s
362
denial by reports.
191
So persevering are malice and detraction, and so useless is contradiction,
when men are determined not to be convinced. Dr. Owen frankly
acknowledges that he did not believe that the Lord’s Prayer was intended
for a standing form in the Church of Christ, and that he had made some
free remarks on the improper repetition of it in the English Liturgy, and
on the superstitious views which some persons entertained about it. But
he just as solemnly declares: —
“I do, and ever did believe, that that prayer is part of the Canonical Scripture, which I would not
willingly blaspheme. I do believe that it was composed by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and
have vindicated it from being a collection of such petitions as were then in use among the Jews,
as some learned men had, I think, unadvisedly asserted. I do, and ever did believe it to be the
most perfect form for prayer that was ever composed; and the words of it so disposed by the
Divine wisdom of our blessed Saviour, that it comprehends the substance of all the matter of
prayer to God. I do, and did always believe, that it ought to be continually meditated on, that we
may learn from it, both what we ought to pray for, and in what manner; neither did I ever think
363
a thought or speak a word unsuitable to these assertions.”
In 1657, he was brought by Mr. Colt into Westminster Hall, as a witness
against Mr. Dutton. On being asked to take the oath, he requested the
New Testament be opened before him, and said he would lift up his hand;
but he refused to submit to the ridiculous ceremony of kissing the book.
The Jury requested the Court to inform them whether this mode of
swearing could be admitted; on which Lord Chief Justice Glynn told them
364
the Doctor’s oath was perfectly sufficient.
195
This trifling anecdote shows us how Owen viewed what some, perhaps,
may consider but a small matter; but which enters deeply into the awful
abuse and little influence of oaths, for which England is proverbial; and
which constitutes a large portion of its national guilt.
The account which Anthony Wood gives of the conduct and manners of
Owen while Vice-Chancellor, is too curious to be omitted.
“He endeavoured,” says that illiberal writer, “to put down habits, formalities, and all ceremony,
notwithstanding he had taken an oath before to observe the statutes and maintain the privileges
of the University. While he underwent that office, instead of being a grave example to the
University, he scorned all formality, and undervalued his office, by going in quirpo, like a young
scholar — with powdered hair, snake-bone band-strings or band-strings with very large tassels,
lawn band, a large set of ribbands pointed at his knees, and Spanish leather boots, with large
365
lawn tops, and his hat mostly cocked.”
This most singular representation has the misfortune to be scarcely
consistent with itself. To be an enemy to pomp, and yet a man of dress, to
wish to put down form in others, and be at the same time very formal
himself, are scarcely reconcilable. It is true that Owen attached little
importance to hoods and tippets, and other academic paraphernalia, in
which Wood supposed a great part of the glory of an Oxford education
consisted. But an extract from Evelyne’s Journal will show that he did not
interfere with the forms of the University.
196
“July 9, 1654, Dr. French preached at St. Mary’s, on Mat. 12.42 — advising the students to search
after true wisdom, not to be found in the books of philosophers, but in the Scriptures alone. In
366
the afternoon, the famous Independent, Dr. Owen, perstringing Episcopacy. On Monday I
went again to the schools to hear the several faculties; and in the afternoon waited out the whole
Act in St. Mary’s — the long speeches of the Proctors, the Vice-Chancellor, the several Professors
— creation of Doctors by the cap, ring, kiss, etc. — these ancient ceremonies and institutions
367
not yet being wholly abolished. Dr. Kendal, now inceptor, among others, performing his Act
incomparably well, concluded it with an excellent oration, abating his Presbyterian animosities.
368
The Act was closed with a speech of the Vice-Chancellor.”
On the subject of the University oath, we can let the Doctor himself
speak: —
“I can say, with some confidence that the intention and design of the oath were observed by me
with as much conscience and diligence, as by any who have since acted in the same capacity.
And being provoked by this man [Vernon] I do not fear to say that, considering the state of
affairs at that time in the nation and the University, I do not believe there is any person of
learning, ingenuity, or modesty, who was related to that place in those days, who will not grant
at least that, notwithstanding some differences from them about things of very small
importance, I was not altogether useless to the interest of learning, morality, peace, and the
369
preservation of the place itself.”
197
Wood’s account of Owen’s dress is vastly amusing. We would have been
much gratified if he had furnished us with a drawing of this dandy Vice-
chancellor. His snakebone bandstrings, and lawn boot tops, would be
370
invaluable antiquarian relics if they could be recovered. Had Owen
been a person of a different description, Anthony would have told us of
his turnip head, sepulchral face, and sackcloth garb, by which he
disgraced the university, and brought all good breeding into contempt.
Granger, however, justly remarks that Wood’s description of Owen’s style
amounts to no more than his being a man of good person and behaviour,
371
and liked to go well-dressed.
“We must be extremely cautious,” adds that acute writer, “how we form our judgment of
characters at this period; the difference of a few modes or ceremonies in religious worship has
been the cause of infinite prejudice and misrepresentation. The practice of some of the splenetic
372
writers of this period, reminds me of the painter, well known by the appellation of hellish
Brueghell, who had so accustomed himself to painting witches, imps, and devils, that he
sometimes made but little difference between his human and infernal figures.”
198
Nothing could more accurately describe the manner of the Oxford
historian. Granger, though a Churchman, expresses himself very
honourably of Owen. “Supposing it to be necessary for one of his
persuasion to be placed at the head of the University, none was so proper
as this person who governed it several years with much prudence and
moderation, when faction and animosity seemed to be a part of every
373
religion.”
At the installation of Richard Cromwell into the office of Chancellor,
Owen addressed him in the name of the university, and eulogized in the
strongest terms, the character of his father.
“The university of Oxford casts at your feet those inferior sceptres which your great parent was
not ashamed to have borne in hands that now almost regulate the balance of power in all
Europe, and which were no contemptible omens of his rising glory and honour. If the gownsmen
seem to you to act with a higher spirit than suits their condition, if they seem to be puffed up
with a certain degree of pride because they are unwilling to be under the care and protection of
an inferior patron — that must be ascribed to the exceeding great favour of him who, by his
affection, compelled them to forget their lot, and to aspire to the noblest advantages of every
description. But it is unnecessary, at present, to expatiate on his praise, or to repeat his good
deeds, since all are eager to ascribe to him the best blessings they enjoy; and he has himself
obtained immortal honour by his conduct.
199
I therefore purposely omit the eulogy of the wisest and bravest man which this age, fertile in
heroes, has produced. Whatever may become of England, it shall ever be known that he was a
374
prince who had at heart the glory of the island, and the honour of religion.”
Part of his concluding address to the university, after Dr. Conant had
been appointed his successor, enumerates some of the services which had
been rendered to it during his administration. It will therefore form an
appropriate conclusion to this section of his Memoirs:
“…persons have been matriculated; twenty-six admitted to the degree of Doctor; three hundred
and thirty-seven to the degree of Master of Arts; six hundred and ninety-seven to that of
375
Bachelor of Arts — Professors salaries, lost for many years, have been recovered and paid;
some offices of respectability have been maintained; the rights and privileges of the university
have been defended against all the efforts of its enemies; the treasury is increased tenfold; many
of every rank in the university have been promoted to various honours and benefices; new
exercises have been introduced and established; old ones have been duly performed;
reformation of manners has been diligently studied, in spite of the grumbling of certain
profligate brawlers; labours have been numberless; besides submitting to the most enormous
expense, often when brought to the brink of death on your account, I have hated these limbs and
this feeble body which was ready to desert my mind; the reproaches of the vulgar have been
disregarded, the envy of others has been overcome.
200
In these circumstances, I wish you all prosperity, and bid you farewell. I congratulate myself on
a successor who can relieve me of this burden; and congratulate you on one who is able to
completely repair any injury which your affairs may have suffered through our inattention But,
as I do not know where the thread of my discourse might lead me, I cut it short here. I seek again
my old labours, my usual watchings, my interrupted studies. As for you Gentlemen of the
376
university, may you be happy, and fare you well!”


 CHAPTER VIII.
Owen publishes his “Divina Justitia” — His work “On the Perseverance of the Saints” — John
Goodwin — The doctrine of perseverance — Kendal — Lamb — Baxter writes on this subject —
Owen requested by the Council of State to answer Biddle’s two Catechisms — Biddle — Progress of
Socinianism — The “Vindiciae Evangelicae” — Never answered— “On the Mortification of Sin” —
Controversy with Hammond about Grotius — Death of Gataker—Selden — Usher.
It might be thought that the labours accompanying the Deanery of Christ
church, and the office of Vice-chancellor of the university; of preaching
regularly on the Lord’s day; of attending many meetings in London at the
request of Government; and preaching occasionally before Parliament;
with various other public and important employments, would have so
completely occupied Owen, that no time would have been found for
writing books. Difficult as it is to conceive how he could, in such
circumstances, find leisure for the latter occupation, it was during this
period that some of his most valuable and elaborate works were
produced. I will now proceed to give some account of these.
The first which claims our attention, is a Latin Dissertation on Divine
Justice, — “Diatriba de Divina Justitia, etc.; or the claims of Vindicatory
Justice asserted, 12mo, pp. 296. — Ox. 1653.” It originated, the Doctor
tells us, in one of the public disputations in the university, in which it fell
to his lot to discourse on the vindicatory justice of God, and the necessity
of its exercise on the supposition of the existence of sin. Though he had
the Socinians chiefly in his eye, it was understood that some very
respectable theologians in Oxford, entertained different sentiments from
those which he then expressed.
202
A good deal of discussion ensued, in consequence of which he published
this Diatriba. It is almost entirely of a scholastic nature, revealing much
acuteness and a profound acquaintance with the subject; but it is not
likely to be read with much interest now. It resolves itself entirely into a
single proposition: — Whether God, considered as a moral Governor,
could forgive sin without an atonement, or without such a provision for
the honour of his justice, as that which is made by the sacrifice of Christ?
Owen, as we apprehend, scripturally and successfully maintains the
negative of this proposition (God could not). The affirmative had been
377
held by Dr. Twisse of Newbury (Prolocutor of the Westminster
Assembly) in a work entitled “Vindiciae Gratiae, potestatis, ac
Providentiae Divinae,” etc. published in reply to Arminius in 1632; and by
Samuel Rutherford of St. Andrews, in his “Disputatio Scholastica de
Divina Providentia,” published at Edinburgh in 1619. Both Twisse and
Rutherford were learned and able men; but they were on the wrong side
in this point, and appear to be at some disadvantage as disputants with
Owen. He had been a good deal molested with the reference to human
authority on this subject, on which he very properly remarks —
“That gigantic spectre, ‘It is everywhere spoken against,’ should have occasioned me no delay,
had it not come forth inscribed with the mighty names of Augustine, Calvin, Musculus, Twisse,
and Vossius. And, although I could not help but entertain, for all those persons, that reverence
and honour to which they are entitled — yet, I easily got rid of that difficulty. It was partly by
considering myself as having a right to ‘that liberty with which Christ has made us free;’ and
partly by opposing to these, the names of other very learned theologians — such as Paraeus,
Piscator, Mohnaeus, Lubbertus, Rivet, Cameron, Maccovius, Junius (professor-at Samur), and
others who, after the virus of Socinianism had spread, cleared up this truth with great accuracy
378
and caution.”
203
The subject is confessedly a difficult and abstruse one, in the present
imperfect state of our faculties.
“For what we call darkness and obscurity in Divine things,” says Owen, “is nothing else than
their celestial glory and splendour striking on our feeble eyes, the rays of which we are unable to
bear in this evanescent life. Hence, God himself, who is light, and ‘in whom is no darkness at all,’
and ‘who clothes himself with light as with a garment’ in respect to us, is said to have made
379
‘darkness his pavilion.’”
I cannot deny myself the pleasure of quoting another passage of his
preface, on account of both its beauty and its truth.
“I confess there are many other subjects of our religion on which we might dwell with greater
pleasure and satisfaction of mind. Such, I mean, as afford freer and wider scope for ranging
380
through the most delightful meads of the Holy Scriptures, and contemplating in them the
transparent fountains of life and rivers of consolation — subjects which, unencumbered by the
thickets of scholastic terms and distinctions, unembarrassed by the impediments and sophisms
of an enslaving philosophy, lead sweetly and pleasantly into pure, unmixed, and delightful
fellowship with the Father, and with his Son.”
204
The work is dedicated “To the most illustrious, and noble Oliver
Cromwell, commander in chief of the army of the Parliament of the
English Republic, and the most honourable Chancellor of the University
of Oxford.” It went through the press (the printer tells the reader) while
the “author was absent in London, about the affairs of the university.”
This accounts for some errors in the printing of the book; a fault which is
too chargeable on many of the works of Owen. A short answer to it was
published by Mr. Thomas Gilbert, then in Shropshire, a particular friend
381
of Dr. Owen’s, and the author of his Epitaph. The design of this Tract is
to show the possibility of pardon without satisfaction; and that the death
of Christ was not absolutely necessary, but of Divine free choice. Baxter
says that he also wrote an answer to that book in a brief premonition to
382
his Treatise against infidelity, to decide that controversy. I apprehend
the best decision will be found in the reasonings of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, chap. 10.1-14, which the reader may consult for his own
satisfaction, with the assistance of Owen’s Exposition. An English
translation of the Diatriba, by Mr. Hamilton, was published in 1789 with
a recommendatory preface by Drs. Stafford and Simpson, and Mr.
Ryland, Senior.
“It will be granted,” they say, “by all competent judges, that the author reveals an uncommon
acquaintance with his subject; that he has clearly explained the nature of Divine justice, and
demonstrated it to be, not merely an arbitrary thing depending upon the sovereign pleasure of
the supreme Lawgiver, but essential to the Divine nature.”
The translation, on the whole, is well executed, but rather too literal.
205
The next work which the Doctor produced is a more elaborate
performance, in English.
“The doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, Explained and Confirmed; or, the certain permanency
of their acceptance with God, and sanctification from God, manifested and proved from the
eternal principles, the effectual causes, and the external means of it; in the immutability of the
nature, decrees, covenant, and promises of God; the oblation and intercession of Jesus Christ;
the promises, exhortations, and threatenings of the gospel: improved in its genuine tendency to
obedience and consolation; and vindicated in a full answer to the discourse of Mr. John
Goodwin against it, in his book entitled, ‘Redemption redeemed.’ “With some digressions
concerning the immediate effects of the death of Christ, personal indwelling of the Spirit, union
with Christ, the nature of gospel promises, etc.” — Folio pp. 444. Oxford 1654.
It deserves to be noted that he does not assume the title of D.D. on the
first page — a proof of the truth of his reply to Cawdry already quoted;
and that he counted it a higher honour to be “John Owen, a servant of
Jesus Christ, in the work of the gospel,” than a Doctor of Divinity by
human creation.
I have given the extended title of the work, because it may serve as an
analysis of its contents which, even if it were practicable within
reasonable limits, it would not fit our design to attempt it. We have first a
dedication to “His Highness, Oliver, Lord Protector of the
Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland,” in which he
expresses his confidence in Cromwell’s Christian character, and his
interest in the subject of the work. Then follows another to the “Heads of
Colleges and Halls in the University,” in which he compliments them on
their learning, orthodoxy, and steadfastness in the faith.
206
He assures them that “no small portion of the work owed its rise to
journeys, and similar avocations from his ordinary course of studies —
with some spare hours, for the most part, while absent from all books and
assistance whatever.” We then have a Preface to the reader, of forty folio
pages, in which he gives a sort of history of the doctrine defended; or of
the reception it had formerly met with. And by the way, he enters the lists
with Dr. Hammond, on the Episcopal controversy, and the epistles of
Ignatius. There is a great deal of learning in the Preface; but it is in so
exceedingly rugged a state, as to require no small exercise of patience to
labour through it.
John Goodwin, whom he chiefly opposes, was one of the most
extraordinary men of his age and profession. He was an Arminian, and a
republican; a man of violence and war, both in politics and religion. His
opinions, talents, and contests, according to Owen, rendered him an
object of no ordinary attention; and his controversial powers were of the
highest order. He had a great command of language “trimmed and
adorned with all manner of signal improvements.” His expressions swell
over all bounds and limits — metaphors, similitudes, parables, all push
the current — shallow and wide, but abundantly noisy and imposing —
“Monte decurrens velut amnis, imbres
Quem super notas aluere ripas,
Fervet, immensusque ruit profundo
Pindarus ore.”
One great object of his ‘Redemption redeemed,’ which is neither more
nor less than an Arminian system of divinity, is to exhibit the doctrine of
his adversaries, as
207
“Monstrum horrendem, informe, ingens, cui lumen idem pium”
— a dismal, uncomfortable, fruitless, death-procuring system. Owen
takes him up only on one point, and along with the examination of his
arguments, brings into view everything of importance which had been
urged on the subject by men of the same sentiments in former or in latter
times. The work contains a very accurate statement, and a most masterly
defence, of the doctrine of perseverance. Every scriptural argument is
judiciously brought forward, and no point or circumstance of importance
calculated to establish the doctrine, is omitted. Though there is a good
383
deal of controversy, there is not much of the odium theologicum. The
doctrine is satisfactorily vindicated from its alleged tendency to induce
carelessness or ungodliness; and is shown to be eminently conducive to
the comfort and purification of the people of God. It is rather surprising,
when so many of the Doctor’s Works have been abridged or republished,
that this still remains in the first edition, and is less known than its
importance demands. It would be easy to abstract from it all the
temporary argumentation with Goodwin, and to leave behind the
valuable theological illustration of the doctrine.
The perseverance of the saints is the last of the five contested points
between Calvinists and Arminians. But, like all the rest, its defence
necessarily involves the discussion of the other four. If the salvation of a
sinner is wholly a matter of favour, then it is not conceivable that this
favour would commence its operations, and either fail in its ultimate
design, or be aborted by the untoward dispositions or fickleness of the
creature. This would imply either deficiency in the plan of Sovereign
mercy, or caprice in its administration.
208
It forgets that gracious influence is bestowed to correct the tendencies of
human corruption, and to preserve from falling, as well as to secure
eternal happiness. What is the doctrine of perseverance, but God’s
method of preserving and perfecting that which he had the exclusive
honour to begin? If indeed salvation commences with man, is carried on
by his own efforts and completed by his resolution, the matter is entirely
altered; and nothing would be more contingent or hopeless than the
salvation of any one individual. It may safely be left to the determination
of every Christian reader, whether such a scheme has the support of
Scripture, is fitted to promote the glory of God, or is adapted to the
present state of human nature.
The perseverance of the saints is a doctrine which, rightly understood,
has afforded much solid comfort to Christians; and in its very nature it is
fitted to produce this effect. The conviction that the unchangeable love
and the almighty power of God are engaged for the preservation and
eternal happiness of a fallen creature, must produce the strongest
emotions of gratitude, and the highest feelings of moral obligation, in
those who have scriptural evidence that they are the subjects of Divine
mercy. That the doctrine has often been injudiciously stated and not
infrequently abused, is an admission that will no more invalidate its truth
than that of any other doctrine of grace — to every one of which the same
remark will apply. A remarkable illustration is afforded of the perverted
application of the doctrine, in the reported conversation between Dr.
Thomas Goodwin and the Protector Cromwell on his deathbed. I am far
from being satisfied of the truth of the anecdote, as it is told.
209
It is very probable that such a conversation took place, and I do not doubt
that Goodwin might use some rather unsuitable expressions. But neither
Cromwell nor Goodwin was so fanatical as to believe that a state of
salvation was compatible with living in sin, and dying impenitent. We
may have been told the truth, but not the whole truth. The omission of a
few sentences may have concealed the explanation given by Goodwin of
the sentiment that he is said to have uttered, and the cautions against
self-deception which he very probably addressed to the dying Protector.
The condition of that man must be awfully dangerous, whose past
experience of Divine goodness encourages present delinquency; or whom
the securities of the covenant of mercy lead to presumptuous
transgression. Owen had no suspicion of such being the tendency of his
views of this doctrine. That is evident from the whole treatise, and
especially from the awful description which he gives of the fearful
apostasy of many who had made a profession of the truth. These are
occurrences which are not particular to any age or place — though they
may be more numerous and apparent at one time than at another. These
are the stumbling-blocks, by which woe comes upon an ignorant world;
and by which men are prejudiced against the doctrine of Christ. But still
the foundation of God stands sure. It would be highly criminal to explain
away important truth, or to deprive the genuine Christian of a legitimate
source of comfort, because the hypocrite may soothe himself to sleep by
it, or the licentious may profane it. It is the glory of the gospel that it
provides mercy for the very chief of sinners; but if any man is encouraged
by this, to continue in sin, the same gospel pronounces his doom. The
doctrine which Owen defends, encourages hope in God, but it inculcates
fear in respect to ourselves; it cherishes confidence, not by leading us to
look back on the past, but forward to the future; and it justifies the
expectation of final perseverance only while men continue to persevere.
210
Owen was not the only opponent of Goodwin. Dr. George Kendall
attacked his ‘Redemption Redeemed’ in another quarter, in his
“Vindication of the doctrine commonly received in the Reformed
churches, concerning God’s intentions of special grace and favour to his
elect, in the death of Christ,” etc. fol., 1653. It has Owen’s imprimatur, as
Vice-chancellor, prefixed in Latin. In it he speaks very honourably of the
author and his work. Another reply came from the pen of a zealous and
popular Baptist minister, Mr. Thomas Lamb, 4to. 1656. Richard Baxter
tried his middle course on this, as on other subjects. He published in
1653, his “Judgment about the perseverance of believers,” to which
Kendall replied in his “Sanctis Sancti.” —Dr. Kendall, he says, “was a
little quick-spirited man, of great ostentation, and a considerable orator
and scholar; he thought to advance his reputation by a triumph over John
Goodwin and me.” Baxter intended to deprive him of this. But for once,
he allowed his adversary to have the last word by submitting to the
arbitration of Archbishop Usher who, he says, owned his judgment, but
384
desired us to write against each other no more. After two or three
years’ consideration, Goodwin returned a scoffing reply to so much of the
Perseverance of the Saints, as was written (according to Owen) in a
385
quarter of an hour.
211
Before this work was published, Owen had another task imposed on him
— to reply to John Biddle, the Socinian. This singular person, the
acknowledged father of English Anti-trinitarians, was born at Wotton-
under-edge, in the county of Gloucester. He was educated in Oxford,
where he obtained the reputation of a good scholar. By the influence of
leading men in the university, he was elected Master of a free school in
the city of Gloucester in 1641. There he soon began to intimate his doubts
respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. The communication of a small MS.
containing twelve arguments against the Deity of the Holy Spirit, led to
his imprisonment as the means of his conviction. After obtaining his
liberty, he was brought before Parliament; and by its orders, he was
detained in custody for five years. While in prison, however, he published
“A Confession of Faith, concerning the Holy Trinity,” 1648. In
consequence of this, his life was in imminent danger. For the
386
Presbyterian party in the Long Parliament procured an act to be
passed by which the person denying in words, or in writing, the Being of
God, the Deity of the Son or Holy Spirit, the distinction of the two natures
in Christ, or his atonement — if the indictment were found, and the party
did not abjure the error — should suffer death, without benefit of clergy.
In other parts of this unmerciful statute, Baptists, Independents,
Episcopalians, and Arminians, are subjected to inferior punishments. So
that, had it been enforced, all except Presbyterians would have been
387
exposed to suffering in their persons, liberty, or property. It was in
reference to such measures, that Milton remarked indignantly, “New
388
Presbyter is but Old Priest writ large.”
212
The friends of orthodoxy, however, had not allowed Biddle to write
unanswered. He was taken up by Nicholas Estwick, in his “Examination
of Mr. Biddle’s Confession of Faith;” also by Mr. Matthew Poole, in his
“Plea for the Godhead of the Holy Ghost;” and by Francis Cheynel, in his
“Divine Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” This exchange was
more to the purpose than imprisoning or hanging the unfortunate
defender of heresy. Biddle still went on publishing, and produced in 1654,
“a Twofold Catechism: the one simply called a Scripture Catechism, the
other a brief Scripture Catechism for Children.” For this last publication
he was again brought before Parliament, his books condemned to be
burned, and he was himself once more committed to prison. Greater
extremities would probably have followed, if the Protector had not
befriended Biddle, and finally sent him out of the way. After the
389
restoration, this unfortunate man at last died in prison. Biddle was a
man of learning, and of a bold and independent mind. By his sufferings,
perhaps as much as his writings, he attracted attention to a creed that
was then little known in England; but its prevalence in that country since
then, has almost blotted out the existence of the party in which his
sufferings commenced. So mysterious and unexpected are the revolutions
and arrangements of Providence.
The progress of Socinianism in England about this time appears to have
excited considerable alarm. Some of the foreign divines interfered in the
controversy, such as Johann Cloppenburg, Professor of Divinity in West
Frisia. He published a Latin Vindication of the Deity of the Holy Spirit,
against John Biddle, 4to. 1652.
213
Nicholas Arnold, Professor of Theology at Franeker, harshly criticized
Biddle’s Catechisms, in the Preface to his “Religio Sociniana,” 1654. And
Maresius, Chief Professor of Divinity at Groningen, attacked them very
largely in his “Hydra Socinianismi,” published that same year. In the
course of doing that, he deplores the sad state of England on account of
what he supposed to be the progress of this destructive sect. At home, the
provincial Assembly of London issued particular instructions for the
390
education and catechising of youth. The Council of State, conceiving
that some more complete exposure of Socinianism was necessary, laid its
commands on Dr. Owen to undertake this important task.
The Doctor lost no time in executing the work which he had been so
honourably invited to write. For the very next year he produced a quarto
volume of seven hundred pages, full of profound erudition. “Vindiciae
Evangelicae, or the mystery of the Gospel Vindicated, and Socinianism
examined; in the consideration and confutation of a Catechism, called a
Scripture Catechism, written by John Biddle, M. A., etc.; Oxford, 1655.” It
is dedicated to the Council of State, at whose request it was published.
Next, we have a letter to “his brethren the heads and governors of colleges
and halls in Oxford.” And then follows a historical preface of seventy
pages, addressed to all “who labour in word and doctrine in Great
Britain.” In this part of the work, he gives a learned and important
narrative of the progress of Anti-trinitarianism in the world; but
particularly since the reformation.
214
It is replete with curious information respecting the characters and
proceedings of the first founders of the party, and certainly does not place
them in a very favourable light. I do not have the means to ascertain how
far all the sources from which Owen derived his information are to be
depended on. Some abatement should always be made from ex parte
statements; but I have no doubt, he was fully satisfied with the
authenticity and correctness of the testimonies on which he depended.
After the historical Preface, we have an examination of Mr. Biddle’s
Preface, which extends to forty-four pages more of preliminary
discussion. It concludes thus: —
“Having briefly washed the paint from the porch of Mr. Biddle’s fabric; and shown it to be a
 composition of rotten posts and dead men’s bones, whose plaster being removed, their
abomination lies naked to all. I will enter the building itself to consider what entertainment he
has provided there for those whom, in the entrance, he so subtlely and earnestly invites to turn
in, and partake of his provisions.”
In prosecuting this determination, the Doctor does not confine himself to
Biddle’s Catechisms. He takes in with it the Racovian Catechism, the joint
work of Smalcius and Moscorovius, Polish Socinians. It is considered to
contain the sentiments of the great body of foreign Anti-trinitarians. He
also notes that the Annotations of Grotius are strongly tinctured with the
poison of Socinianism. Wherever Grotius’ comments are at variance with
the truth, or conceal it, the Doctor faithfully points it out, and endeavours
to confute them.
The body of the work is divided into thirty-five chapters in which he
treats at great length, and with great minuteness and ability, every point
of the Socinian controversy.
215
The Socinian sentiments respecting the Scriptures; the Divine nature and
character; the original and present condition of man; the person,
character, and undertaking of Christ; the doctrines of grace, election, and
perfect obedience; the resurrection of the dead, and the future condition
of the wicked, etc. — all undergo the fullest and most rigid scrutiny. They
are proved to be very contrary to what is taught in Scripture, as well as
subversive of the foundations of Christianity. It is among the most
complete productions in this department of polemical theology. And
considering the circumstances in which it was composed, and the short
time devoted to it, it is a memorable proof of the powerful intellect, and
industrious habits of the celebrated author. It is also the first English
work in which the Socinian system is fully examined, and fairly
overthrown on Scriptural principles. As numerous and important as the
works on this controversy are, which have since been published, I do not
hesitate to affirm that so far as the argument from Scripture is concerned,
there is scarcely anything of importance in those later ones, which will
not be found in the Vindiciae Evangelicae of Owen. To the honour of the
Evangelical Dissenters, it ought to be mentioned that from the period of
this publication to the present day, they have never lacked a man to
defend with learning and ability, the great truths of our common faith.
From the Vindiciae of the Vice-chancellor of Oxford, to the publications
of Fuller, and Wardlaw, and Smith, a series of works has appeared among
them which will not be easily matched by the writers of any body of
Christians, domestic or foreign, in ancient or in modern times.
216
One thing in the Vindiciae reveals the author’s sagacity, and looks almost
like a prediction. Referring to the fearless speculations in which many
then indulged, and which were the natural results of the freedom from
ecclesiastical tyranny which the country had only begun to enjoy, he asks,
“Are not the doctrines of free will, universal redemption, apostasy from
grace, the mutability of God, the denial of the resurrection, with the
foolish conceits of many about God and Christ, ready to gather under the
head of Socinianism?” — “If ever Satan settles on a stated opposition to
391
the gospel, I dare boldly say, it will be on Socinianism.” It is a singular
fact that the career of many has been substantially what the Doctor
describes here: from Calvinism to Arminianism, to Arianism, and finally
to Socinianism. Biddle himself is an example of this course. The
celebrated Dr. Priestly, the learned and industrious Kippis, the eloquent
and eccentric Robert Robinson, were all, I believe, illustrations of the
same kind. If we advert from individuals to the progress of communities,
the history of many of the old Presbyterian societies in England, and of
the once celebrated church of Geneva, it will illustrate the same gradual
and fatal deterioration.
In conducting this controversy, I will not say that Owen always maintains
that unruffled calmness and placid good-nature which distinguish many
other publications of his. At times, he shows in the selection of his
epithets, and the structure of his sentences, that he was a man of like
passions with others. There is nothing, however, of scurrility or personal
abuse. He was too much a Christian and a gentleman to indulge the
temper of malevolence, or the language of Billingsgate.
217
Where important truth is concerned, he reproves sharply. And where he
discovers Latet Anguis in herba [a snake in the grass], he makes no
scruple to drag it out, and to strangle it. He uses no ceremony with the
greatest names, where the glory of his Master and the souls of men are at
stake. He was a stranger to that kind of courtesy which compliments men
as “Christians,” whom an apostle would have considered enemies to the
cross of Christ. But at the same time, he reveals that the object of his
hostility was their sentiments, not their persons; and that while he could
show no mercy to the former, he could pity and pray for the latter.
The following passage contains so much important instruction on the
mode of conducting religious controversy, that I have no doubt the reader
will be glad to meet with it.
“That direction which with me is instar omnium [equivalent], is a diligent endeavour to have the
power of the truth contended for, abiding on our hearts, that we may not contend for notions,
but for what we have a practical acquaintance with in our own souls. When the heart is cast into
the mould of the doctrine which the mind embraces; when the evidence and necessity of the
truth abide in us; when it is not the sense of the words, but of the things in our hearts; when we
have communion with God in the doctrine we contend for — then we will be garrisoned by the
grace of God against all the assaults of men. Without this, all our contending is of no value to
ourselves. How am I better off if I can dispute that Christ is God, but have no sense that he is a
God in covenant with my soul? What will it avail me to evince by testimonies and arguments,
that he has made satisfaction for sin, if through unbelief the wrath of God abides on me?
218
Will it be any advantage to me in the end, to profess and dispute that God works the conversion
of a sinner by the irresistible grace of his Spirit, if I was never experientially acquainted with that
opposition to the law of God, which is in my own soul by nature, nor with the efficacy of the
exceeding greatness of the power of God in quickening, enlightening, and producing the fruits of
obedience? It is the power of the truth in the heart alone, that will make us indeed cling to it in
392
the hour of temptation.”
These remarks are equally applicable to every religious discussion, as well
as to the Socinian controversy — and indeed, to the whole system of
Christianity. He is not a Christian who is one outwardly; religion does not
consist in a spirit, or even a capacity for disputing about it. We have no
more Christian knowledge than what influences the dispositions, and
regulates the conduct — all the rest is but barren speculation which
inflates the mind, and is opposed to the love which builds up. It is
possible to contend for truth in a spirit that is most opposite to its nature;
and to most hotly advocate the rights of a cause from which we ourselves
may derive no benefit. In all cases, it should be remembered that the
wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God.
No answer that I can find, was ever made to this work. I do not know
whether this arose from the circumstances of Biddle at the time (which
certainly were not favourable to the defence of his sentiments), or from a
conscious inability to meet the body of argument contained in the
Vindiciae. But so it is: the first complete examination of Socinianism,
published in England, remains unanswered to this day; and I may add, it
will remain unanswerable.
219
The next thing he published is a short treatise “On the Mortification of
Sin in Believers,” 1656. He was led to this by observing the general
behaviour of professors of Christ, the snares by which they were
entangled, and the injudicious attempts of some to mortify sin without
393
the influence of the gospel principle. Too much reason has always
existed for this complaint. Selfishness, the love of ease and of pleasure,
fear of the world’s frown, and desire for its applause, have an awful
tendency to cherish that self-delusion by which, it is to be feared, too
many who profess Christianity are finally destroyed. This treatise is the
substance of some sermons on Romans 8.13. At the desire of those who
heard them, Owen was induced to commit them to the press. He was also
influenced by another consideration. Having been engaged for some time
in the discussion of various controversies (in some degree imposed upon
him), he wished to produce something of a different nature, and likely to
be more generally useful.
“I hope,” he says, “I may own in sincerity, that my heart’s desire to God, and the chief object of
my life in the station in which the good Providence of God has placed me, are that mortification
and universal holiness may be promoted in my own life, and in that of others, to the glory of
God.”
It is certainly one of the strongest proofs of the greatness of Owen’s mind,
and of the eminent degree of spirituality to which he had attained, that
amidst the multiplicity of his public labours in which he was deeply
engaged — the cultivation of general knowledge, the noise of political
warfare, and the perplexities of theological warfare —he found not only
the time, but the capacity for thinking upon such subjects as this.
220
To maintain the life of godliness and the ardour of devotional feeling,
amidst the bustle of a court, or surrounded by the cooling atmosphere of
a college — these are attainments of no ordinary kind. Yet, if we may
judge of the state of his mind from the tract before us, he must have
possessed the faculty of looking off from “things seen and temporal,”
when exposed to the full force of their influence, “to things unseen and
eternal.” It reveals a profound acquaintance with the corruption of the
human heart, and the deceitful workings of the natural mind. Its
principles are equally remote from the superficiality of general
profession, and from ascetic austerity. It is not the mortification of a
voluntary humility, or the infliction of self-devised and unnecessary pain,
which it recommends. Rather, it is the gradual weakening and final
destruction of the principle of sin, by the operation of spiritual influence,
and the application of Divine truth. The life of Christianity consists in this
process; and where it is not going on, neither the practice nor the
enjoyment of the gospel will be found.
About this time, also, he was involved in a controversy with Dr.
Hammond, concerning the sentiments of Grotius about the Deity and
atonement of Christ. Grotius was one of the most elegant and
distinguished writers of the seventeenth century. During a period which
abounded with critics and commentators, civilians and theologians, he
appeared in the first rank in all those classes. His name still carries an
influence and authority which, comparatively, few others enjoy. He,
undoubtedly, studied the sacred books with deep attention, and brought
the vast extent of his critical and classical attainments to bear with happy
effect on many obscure and difficult passages.
221
In the elucidation of the Bible from the classic literature of Greece and
Rome, he may be considered almost the founder of a school on the
Continent, from which have issued many learned and important (and not
a few exceedingly pernicious) works on the Scriptures. These are works in
which the sacred volume is considered merely as an ancient classic — in
which its inspiration and all its peculiar doctrines are either denied, or
submerged in critical contention about its words and idioms — and all
that is interesting to a sinner or a believer, has been cooled down by a
freezing mixture of Arminianism, Socinianism, and Infidelity. The
394
Scholia of Grotius on the Old Testament, were first published in 1644,
and those on the New, in 1641, 1646, and 1650. The two last volumes were
posthumous, as their author died in 1645. They excited, as might be
expected, great attention in the learned world. But in both these, and
some other of his writings, Grotius exposed himself to various criticisms.
Suspicions had been long entertained that his views of the Divine
character, and the atoning sacrifice of Christ, were not strictly orthodox
— though these suspicions had been excited by his silence, or his very
guarded language on these subjects, rather than by what he actually
advanced. He had published in 1617, a Defence of the Catholic Faith,
concerning the satisfaction of Christ, against Faustus Socinus. While he
opposed the Socinians, some friends to the atonement were doubtful
whether he had rendered any important service to the orthodox belief.
Ravensperger, a theological professor at Groningen, soon after published
his “Judgment” of this “Defensio Fidei” by Grotius.
222
This occasioned Gerardus Joannes Vossius to publish an answer, in
defence of Grotius. Crellius replied to Grotius, on the part of the
Socinians. He was not answered by Grotius himself — who wrote a
complimentary letter to Crellius, and took no further trouble to put either
his friends or his enemies right — but by Andreas Essenius, in his
“Triumphus Crucis.” While he defends the atonement, and repels
395
Crellius, he is extremely sparing of his praises of Grotius.
In the Preface to his work on the Perseverance of the Saints, Dr. Owen
had made some observations on the epistles of Ignatius, in connexion
with the Episcopal controversy; and also of some of the annotations of
Grotius on the Socinian tendency. Hammond, the champion of
Episcopacy at the time, took up both these subjects in, “A Defence of
Grotius, and an Answer to the Dissertations concerning the epistles of
Ignatius.” 1655. Owen, in his “Vindiciae,” goes into the sentiments of
Grotius more fully. Without alleging the evidence against that celebrated
man from his epistle to Crellius, and his conversation on his death-bed,
Owen examines all the passages of Scripture which treat the deity and
atonement of Christ. And as he goes along, he notes how generally
Grotius, in his commentaries, agrees with the Socinians; and that there is
scarcely a passage in the Old or New Testament on these subjects, which
he does not darken, explain away, or expressly contradict. Against these
criticisms, Dr. Hammond published a second Defence of Grotius, in 1655.
That produced, in 1656, a quarto pamphlet by Owen: “A Review of the
Annotations of Grotius, in reference to the doctrine of the Deity, and
satisfaction of Christ; with a defence of the charge formerly laid against
them.”
223
In this treatise, he reaffirms and successfully establishes what he
formerly asserted; and as Hammond had not met the charge against
Grotius directly, Owen intimates that he was likely to continue having the
same sentiments, should he see even a “Third Defence.” Accordingly, that
soon appeared in “A continuation of the Defence of Grotius, in an answer
to the Review of his Annotations.” 1657. Here Hammond rests the
defence of his hero on Grotius’ work “De Satisfactione;” and on the denial
that Grotius’ posthumous work on the epistles was properly his, as it
contained sentiments contrary to his declared opinions in his life.
Without pronouncing a positive opinion on the subject of dispute, it must
be admitted that Grotius afforded strong reasons for suspecting that he
either did not believe the doctrines referred to, or that he considered
them of inferior importance. Dr. Hammond, the opponent of Owen on
this occasion, was a man of talents, learning, and character. He was one
of the most ardent defenders of his church, and a most devoted servant of
Charles, its royal head; he had no serious objections to Charles’ love of
power and popery. His New Testament commentary shows him to have
been a considerable critic, though influenced by strong systematic
prejudices. His controversial writings reveal more of learning than of
judgment, and mark a greater deference to the authority of Fathers and
Councils, than to that of Christ and his Apostles.
It would be improper to conclude this part of the life of Owen, without
noting the death of three eminent individuals with whom he had some
connexion, and who possessed the greatest share of learning, perhaps, of
any persons in England during that period.
224
The first of these is the well-known puritan, Thomas Gataker, who died in
1654, in the 80th year of his age. This learned and laborious man was a
member of the Westminster Assembly, but more celebrated for his
critical writings than for his connexion with that body. He was
undoubtedly the most enlightened biblical critic of his day in England.
His treatise, “On the Nature and Use of Lots,” 1619, established his
character as a theologian. His “Dissertatio de Novi Testamento Stylo,”
1648; and his Cinnus, 1651 (completed by his son in 1659, under the title
of “Adversaria Miscellanea Posthuma”), contained remarks on difficult
passages of Scripture, and of other Greek and Latin Writers. They exhibit
his profound acquaintance with the Bible, and with the principles of
enlightened interpretation. His admirable edition of the emperor Marcus
Antoninus’s Meditations, with a Latin translation, commentary, and
introductory dissertation, 1652, exhibit his vast acquaintance with
ancient philosophy, as well as his entire command of Grecian literature.
In 1698, the celebrated Witsius published all his critical writings in one
volume, folio, entitled, “Opera Critica,” which will long remain a
monument of his vast erudition, and accurate judgment. Owen and
Gataker are introduced in a rather singular connexion, as opponents of
that knavish impostor, William Lilly, the astrologer. Strange as it may
seem, this fellow was consulted by some of the greatest men of the age —
Lord Fairfax, King Charles I, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, Sir Bulstrode
Whitelocke, Cromwell, etc. The study of astrology was much cultivated in
England about this time. John Booker, Dr. Dee, Dr. Forman, Sir
Christopher Heydon, are all noted for their practice and defences of
judicial astrology.
225
The chief opponents of Lilly, according to his own account, were Gataker,
with whom he had a lengthened controversy — Philip Nye, who also
“bleated forth his judgment publicly, against him and astrology — and
Dean Owen of Christ Church, who, he says, had sharp invectives against
me in his sermons; I cried quittance with him by urging Abbot
Panormitam’s judgment of astrology contrary to Owen’s, and concluded
396
that an Abbot was an ace above a Dean.” These are only some of the
many proofs that the Puritans and Independents were not the visionary
fanatics of the age.
Selden died in the same year as Gataker. He was the glory of England as a
patriot, lawyer, and writer. — No layman of the age possessed half the
erudition of Selden, and few men have benefitted their country so much
by their pen as he did. His “Uxor Hebraica,” his “Libri de
Successionibus,” “De Diis Syris,” “De Synedriis Veterum Hebraeorum,”
etc. show his vast acquaintance with Jewish and Oriental learning; while
his works “On Tithes,” “Titles of Honour,” and “Mare Clausum” — or the
right of Britain to the dominion of the surrounding seas — afford no less
powerful evidence of his researches as an antiquary, and his attainments
as a general scholar. Along with Owen, he was the staunch friend of the
university of Oxford. They appear to have combined their influence to
397
save it from various dangers to which it was exposed.
226
In the year 1656, the learned and amiable Archbishop Usher died. He was
a lover of peace, of moderation, and of all good men. His chronological
labours alone are ample proof of his learning and industry. And some of
his minor productions afford satisfactory evidence that his critical
attainments were far above mediocrity. He was the object of Cromwell’s
favour, who ordered him a public funeral. And the language of Owen in
one of his works shows that there must have been a considerable intimacy
398
between Usher and himself. The death of such men must have been
felt as a public calamity. Their talents were exerted for their country’s
good, their learning adorned the age in which they lived, and their
venerable piety graced the profession of the gospel.


 CHAPTER IX.
The Independents propose to publish a Confession of their faith — Their sentiments on this
subject — Confessions published by them on various occasions — Cromwell consents to their
meeting for this purpose — They assemble at the Savoy — Agree to a declaration of their faith and
Order — 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 the
Declaration — Not much known even among Independents — Death of Cromwell — State of
religion during his Government — His influence on Independency — Tillotson’s account of a fast
in the family of Richard Cromwell — Strictures on that account — Owen publishes his work on
Communion —On Schism — Is answered by Hammond — by Firmin — by Cawdry — Owen’s
Review of Cawdry — Cawdry’s rejoinder — Owen’s defence of himself and Cotton — Publishes on
the Divine Origin of the Scriptures — His considerations on the Polyglot — Walton’s Reply — His
controversy with the Quakers — Richard Cromwell succeeds his Father — Owen preaches before
his first Parliament — Charged with pulling down Richard — Defended from this charge — Assists
in restoring the long Parliament — Preaches before it for the last time — The Independents
entertain fears of their liberty from Monk — Send a deputation to him to Scotland — His conduct
and character —Owen ejected from the Deanery of Christ Church — Remarks on his political
conduct.
In the year 1658, the leading men among the Independent Churches
projected a General Meeting for the purpose of publishing a united
declaration of their faith and order. The part which Dr. Owen took in this
meeting, the misunderstanding which prevails respecting the sentiments
of Independents on the subject of Confessions of Faith, and the
importance of the document published by the Savoy Assembly (for
ascertaining their sentiments at this time on various points), are
sufficient reasons for giving a detailed account of this affair.
No one who requires a Confession of Faith in order to enjoy Christian
privileges can consistently object to a Church confessing the faith in its
corporate capacity.
228
If one Society may lawfully do this, no reasonable objection can exist why
any number of Societies, holding the same sentiments, may not exhibit
their common belief. The public teaching and practice of a Church are
constant declarations of its principles; and it surely cannot be wrong to
do by the press, that which is constantly done by word and action in the
place of worship. Independents have never held the unlawfulness of
publishing declarations or expositions of their existing sentiments and
practice. And if this is all that is meant by Confessions of Faith, then it is
wrong to represent Independents as enemies of them. But these public
formularies are generally viewed in a very different light. They are used as
standards and tests by which the faith and orthodoxy of present and
future generations are to be tried; and to which a solemn subscription or
oath is required, binding the subscriber to abide all his life in the
399
principles thus professed. When extending to a large book of human
composition, when made a test of character, and a qualification for office,
and an evidence of unity — this is what Independents object to — as what
the law of Christ does not enjoin; and what has never promoted the
peace, purity, or unity of the Church; and what has powerfully retarded
the progress of truth.
The proper view of a Confession of Faith, and the distinction that is now
noted, are very accurately stated in the Preface to the Savoy Declaration.
“The most genuine and material use of such Confessions is that under the same form of words,
they express the substance of the same common salvation or unity of their faith; and
accordingly, such a transaction is to be looked upon only as a means of expressing their common
faith, and in no way is it to be made use of as an imposition upon anyone. Whatever is of force or
constraint in matters of this nature, causes them to degenerate from the name and nature of
Confessions, and turns them into exactions and impositions of Faith.”
229
With these views, Independents have almost from the commencement of
their existence, published declarations of their belief. In 1596 was
published, “A true Confession of the Faith, and humble acknowledgement
of the allegiance, which we, her Majesty’s subjects, falsely called
Brownists, hold toward God, and yield to her Majesty and all others who
are over us in the Lord.” In 1604, if not earlier, appeared an “apology or
defence of such true Christians, as are commonly, but erroneously called
Brownists,” etc. This work was published both in Latin and English, and
400
was addressed to the Continental and British Universities. In 1611,
“The English people remaining at Amsterdam” (Baptist Independents)
published a declaration of their Faith. In 1620, King James’ “Loyal
subjects, unjustly called Anabaptists, presented to him and to Parliament
a Confession of their Faith.” A Confession of Faith of seven Baptist
Churches in London was published in 1646; and another of several
Congregations in the county of Somerset, in 1656. In all these documents,
the most explicit avowal is made of all the doctrines of the Gospel, and of
the leading points of Christian practice.
230
Nor are they less explicit on the subject of obedience to Government, than
of faith in God. So false have always been the charges of disloyalty
brought against this body.
In the year 1648, the Congregational Churches in New England held a
meeting at Cambridge, where they agreed to the doctrinal part of the
Westminster Confession, and formed a platform of Church discipline
suited to their own principles. Various reasons might be assigned why the
British Congregationalists had not sooner done the same. The profession
had been long prosecuted — most of the Churches owed their origin to
peculiar circumstances, were far scattered from each other, and had not
enjoyed the opportunity of meeting together for any common object.
They thus allude to these things in the Preface to the Savoy Declaration.
“We confess that from the very first, all, or at least most of our Churches have been in a way, like
so many ships. Though flying the same general colours, they were launched singly, sailing apart
and alone on the vast ocean of these tumultuous times. They were exposed to every wind of
doctrine, under no other conduct than that of the word and spirit, and of their particular elders
and principal brethren. They were without Associations among themselves, nor so much as
holding out common lights to others by which to know where they were. Yet, while we thus
confess to our shame this neglect, let all acknowledge that God has ordered it for his greater
glory, in that his singular care and power should have so watched over each of these, that all
should be found to have steered their course by the same chart, and to have been bound for one
and the same port — and that upon the general search now made, the same holy and blessed
truths of all sorts, which are current and warrantable among the other Churches of Christ in the
world, should be found to be our lading.”
231
During the latter years of Cromwell’s government, they appear to have
felt the necessity to publish their united belief on account of their great
increase, exhibiting their union in the faith and obedience to Christ, and
putting down the many calumnious misrepresentations which had been
industriously disseminated to their disadvantage. For this purpose, they
applied for liberty to meet to the Protector, without whose sanction they
dared not to have assembled. Eachard represents Cromwell as granting
permission with great reluctance. This was perhaps the case, though not
for the reason which this Historian puts into his mouth — “that the
request must be complied with, or they would involve the nation in blood
401
again.” Oliver knew well that they were not the persons who had
involved the country in its calamities; but his security consisted in the
division of religious parties rather than their union — and as he had
discouraged Presbyterian Associations, consistency required that he not
appear friendly to Independent conventions.
His consent being obtained, however, a preparatory meeting was called at
London, by the following letter addressed to the ministers in the city and
its neighbourhood, by the Clerk of the Protector’s Council.
232
Sir,
The Meeting of the Elders of the Congregational Churches in and about London, is appointed at
Mr. (George) Griffiths (preacher in the Charter House) on Monday next, at two o’clock in the
afternoon, where you are desired to be present.
Yours to love, and serve you in the Lord.
402
HENRY SCOBELL.
June 15, 1658.
This preliminary meeting accordingly took place. By its direction, circular
letters were addressed by Mr. George Griffiths to all the Congregational
Churches in England and Wales, inviting them to send Messengers to
constitute a general meeting to be held at the Savoy, on September 29th
following. From a number of the letters in answer to the circular,
preserved in Peek’s Desiderata, it appears that the Churches were
generally favourable to the measure. But some of them very prudently
expressed their fears, lest anything of a political nature should be
concealed under the cover of this proposed Assembly; and lest it was
designed to promote some coalition with the state. The event showed that
nothing of this nature was intended.
About two hundred Elders and Messengers, from over one hundred
Churches, assembled at the Savoy on the day appointed, and continued
together till the twelfth of the following month. They first observed a day
of prayer and fasting, after which they considered whether they should
adopt the Westminster Confession, or draw up an entirely original one of
their own. They preferred the latter resolution, but agreed to keep as near
the method of the other as possible. Mr. Griffiths was chosen clerk, and
Doctors Owen and Goodwin, Messrs. Nye, Bridge, Caryl, and Greenhill
were appointed as a Committee to prepare the heads of agreement. These
were brought in every morning, discussed, and the statement to be
adopted was unanimously agreed to.
233
The whole of it was afterwards published in 4to, under the title, “A
declaration of the Faith and Order, owned and practised in the
Congregational Churches in England; agreed upon and consented to by
their Elders and Messengers in their meeting 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 was
translated into Latin by Professor Hornbeck, and annexed to his letters to
 403
Dury, respecting Independency.
The Savoy Declaration contains the same views of Christian doctrine as
the Westminster Confession; but omits those parts which relate to the
power of Synods, Church censures, Marriage and Divorce, and the
authority of the civil magistrate in purely religious matters, and which
404
were never ratified by Parliament. Instead of these, it has a chapter at
the end, on the Institution of Churches, and the order appointed in them.
It may be proper to extract some passages from this, which convey the
views of the Churches at that time, and from which it will appear whether
the Independents now hold the same leading principles.
On the constitution of churches instituted by Christ, it declares,
“To each of these churches, he has given all that power and authority which is in any way
needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline which he has instituted for
them to observe, with commands and rules for the due and right exerting and executing of that
power.” Sect. 4.
234
“Besides these particular churches,” it maintains, “Christ has not instituted any more extensive
or catholic church, entrusted with power for the administration of his ordinances, or the
execution of any authority in his name.” Sect. 6.
“The members of these churches,” it declares, “are saints by effectual calling, visibly manifested
by their profession and walking.” Sect. 8.
Of office-bearers, it affirms that,
“The officers appointed by Christ are pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons.” Sect. 9.
From the terms employed here, it might be supposed that four distinct
offices were held by the framers, to be appointed for the church. But in
the following sections, they speak of the office of pastor, elder, or teacher,
only as distinct from that of deacon. Whatever distinction they might
have contended for in the eldership or Presbytery of a congregation, in
the exercise of gifts, they appear to have viewed the persons composing it
as occupying the same office. While the Declaration speaks of laying on of
hands, along with fasting and prayer, as the usual mode of appointment
to the pastoral office; it also declares that,
“Those who are chosen by the church, though not set apart by the imposition of hands, are
rightly constituted Ministers of Christ.” Sect. 13.
And that,
“no ordination of others, by those who have been formerly ordained, by virtue of the power they
have received by their ordination, constitutes them church-officers, without previous consent of
a church.” Sect. 15.
In the administration of the church, it declares that,
“No person ought to be added to the church, except by its own consent; so that love, without
dissimulation, may be preserved among all the members.” Sect. 17.
On the subject of church censures, and combinations of churches by their
messengers, its language is worthy of attention.
235
“The power of censures being seated by Christ in a particular church, is to be exercised only
towards particular members of each church respectively as such; and there is no power given by
Him to any Synods or ecclesiastical assemblies to excommunicate, or by their public edicts, to
threaten excommunication or other church censures, against churches, magistrates, or their
people, on any account — no man being liable to that censure, except upon his personal
miscarriage as a member of a particular church.” Sect. 22.
But,
“In cases of difficulties or differences either in point of doctrine or administrations — in which
either the churches in general are concerned; or any one church in its peace, union, and
edification; or any member or members of any church are injured by any proceeding in censures
that are not agreeable to truth and order — it is according to the mind of Christ that many
churches, holding communion together, by their messengers, meet in Synod or council, to
consider and give their advice about that matter, to be reported to all the churches concerned.
However, these Synods so assembled, are not entrusted with any church power, properly so-
called, nor with any jurisdiction over the churches themselves, to exercise any censures over
any churches or persons, or to impose their determination on the churches or officers.”
“Besides these occasional Synods or Councils, Christ has not instituted any stated Synods in a
fixed combination of churches, or their officers, in lesser or greater assemblies; nor are there
any Synods appointed by Christ in a way of subordination to one another.” Sect. 27.
236
This language is so very explicit, that it is scarcely possible to
misunderstand it. If any are afraid of such meetings of messengers, they
have only to consider that they are merely for counsel and advice, and are
invested with no authority or power over the churches. They are entirely
of a voluntary nature, resulting not from systematic organization, but
from the love, union, and agreement existing among the churches. This is
a very different thing from the authority claimed by the ecclesiastical
assemblies, and the regular gradation of courts in the Presbyterian body.
The Savoy Declaration pronounces its disbelief in the entire system of
stated and organized subordination.
Independents have always recognised the propriety of meeting when
there is any serious evil required to be investigated or removed, or when
any general object called for combined exertion. To meet without
sufficient 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 by
surrendering the rights of the churches, or by putting power into the
hands of fallible men, no doubt can be entertained that it is better to be
without it. The union of love and cordial esteem, and that which is the
mere result of system or authority, are very different things.
The preface to the Savoy Declaration, from which some extracts have
already been made, contains various important statements. It avows that
the Independents had always maintained — though at the expense of
much opposition —
“The great principle that, among all Christian states and churches, there should be allowed a
forbearance and mutual indulgence to saints of all persuasions, who keep to and hold fast the
necessary foundations of faith and holiness.” — “We are not ashamed to confess to the whole
Christian world, that this has been our constant principle.”
237
They assert that,
“All professing Christians, with their errors which are purely spiritual, and do not entrench and
overthrow civil society, are to be borne with, and permitted to enjoy all ordinances and
privileges according to their light, as fully as any of their brethren who pretend to the greatest
orthodoxy.”
And they solemnly declare that,
“If they had all the power which any of their brethren of different opinions had desired to have
over them, or others, they would freely grant this liberty to them all.”
I apprehend that this is the first work of the kind in which these truly
noble and Christian sentiments are announced. Happily, it is no longer
necessary to defend their justness or advocate their importance.
Referring to the prognostications of future evil, which men who were no
prophets had presumed to utter, respecting the tendencies of
Independent principles, the Prefacers say this:
405
“From the beginning of the rearing of these churches, the words of the apostle have been
applied to us, ‘That while we promised liberty to others, we ourselves would become servants of
406
corruption, and be brought in bondage to all sorts of fancies and imaginations.’ Yet the
whole world may now see, after the experience of many years, that the gracious God has not only
kept us in that common unity of the faith and knowledge of the Son of God, which the whole
community of saints have, but also in the same truths, both small and great, that are built on
them — that any of the best reformed churches have arrived at in their best times, which were
their first times.”
238
The short time they were together — with the business they had to
execute, without any previous concert; and the unanimity and harmony
which pervaded all their proceedings — they consider these things to be
evidence of the presence and goodness of the Lord, and proof that they
did not have to seek their faith when they assembled.
It would be foolish to expect that this meeting, or its proceedings, should
escape criticism. But it is rather strange that so great a lover of peace as
Richard Baxter, should have been its greatest enemy. His language
respecting its leading members, particularly Dr. Owen, and respecting
some of the expressions in its declaration of Faith, is altogether unworthy
407
of Baxter’s piety and his understanding. Instead of quoting his ill-
natured reflections, which really carry their own confutation along with
them, the reader would perhaps be better pleased with the testimony of
the Rev. James Forbes of Gloucester (one of the members), who was
called out by Baxter’s misrepresentations. Making every reasonable
allowance for the influence of imagination and party feeling, this
Gentleman’s account impresses us strongly in favour of the piety and
solemn procedure of this meeting. He says,
“Generally, in the first place, I declare with all the solemn seriousness that the case requires, that
though I have now turned seventy, through the goodness of God — and have had occasion in the
days of my pilgrimage, to be present at several Synods and meetings of ministers and
messengers of churches — there was the most eminent presence of the Lord with those who
were then assembled, that I ever knew since I had a being.
239
I never saw the like before or since, and I question whether I shall see the like on this side of
glory. It was a kind of heaven on earth, I think, to all who were present. Such rare elaborate
speeches my ears never heard before, nor since. All along, there was a most sweet harmony of
both hearts and judgments amongst them. Mr. Howe, then Chaplain to Richard the Protector,
sat with them. We had some days of prayer and fasting, kept from morning till night; when one
had prayed (I speak the truth and do not lie), I thought no one could outdo that person; and so
408
too in preaching. Yet, ordinarily, those who followed, excelled those who went before.”
If I were disposed to state any particular objection against the Savoy
Declaration, it would be one that is not more applicable to it than to most
of the productions of the same nature: its excessive minuteness. There is
too much of detail under the general heads, and too many explanations —
as if it were not enough to believe the general doctrine, but also necessary
to receive all the reasons which are assigned for it, and everything it is
supposed to imply. This speciality has been the occasion of innumerable
contentions; and the multiplication of explanations to prevent them, has
only made them more fertile sources of division. The confessions of faith,
recorded in Scripture, are all extremely brief, but very comprehensive.
And the truths necessary to be believed by all Christians, are often
summed up in a single sentence. If all the compilers of Confessions had
studied this Scriptural brevity, instead of systematic extension, it would
have done well for the peace and unity of the people of God.
240
A copy of this Confession fell into the hands of Peter du Moulin, a French
Protestant clergyman of some eminence, which it appears he intended to
translate into French, I suppose. But having sent over to England some
remarks on it, either addressed to Owen, or which fell into Owen’s hands,
the Doctor wrote him a letter, which I apprehend put a stop to his future
criticisms. From this letter, it is evident that Moulin had either gotten a
corrupted copy of the Savoy Declaration, or that he was disposed to
corrupt it himself — in his remarks, he charges that it is filled with
“palpable contradiction, nonsense, enthusiasm, and false doctrine.” The
letter has no date, but from its repeated references to Owen’s work on
Justification, it must have been written near the end of the Doctor’s life.
409

The Savoy Declaration has never been much known, or generally used,
even among Independents. As it was not intended to be a test or bond,
and could not be enforced, it has never been regarded as authoritative.
The principles of the body are adverse to all such views, or uses, of any
merely human production. Being substantially the same as the
Westminster Confession and Catechisms, which are more easily found, it
410
seems to have gradually given way to them. The reason may, in part,
also be found in the very moderate zeal of the Congregational body for
the promotion of its distinctive principles.
241
Whether this circumstance is to its credit or its disgrace, is determined as
men consider whether these principles are great, or little, or of no
importance. It is surely desirable that the members of a Christian
community should be able to give a reason for the faith and practice
which they follow; and no man should feel indifferent to the progress of
what he believes to be truth. Christianity teaches that the kingdom of God
does not consist in mere external order or ordinances; but it also teaches
that in everything which he observes in the worship of God, “every man
should be fully persuaded in his own mind.” Rom 14.5
The preparatory measures for the meeting at the Savoy had taken place
during the life of Oliver Cromwell; but the meeting itself was held after
his death. This event occurred on the third of September; a day which the
Protector customarily reckoned fortunate, because some of his most
celebrated victories having been achieved on it. It is to be hoped it was
so, even in the end, notwithstanding the language and opinions of his
enemies respecting Cromwell. We have frequently spoken of this
extraordinary man. It is not the object of this work to detail the deeds of
his public life, nor the anecdotes of his private life; to defend his virtues,
nor extenuate his faults. The services which he rendered to his country,
and to religion, are not unknown; and whatever his motives were, those
services were neither few nor small. To the last, his private morals
remained untainted; his public regard for religion, and for religious
persons, was maintained; and he died with a prayer becoming of a
Christian, and not unworthy of the Protector of England.
242
Baxter’s characterisation of him, though he was never intimate with
Cromwell, is perhaps just, on the whole; but too long to be inserted here.
411
We have frequently quoted the opinion of Owen — an opinion formed
from much personal intercourse with the Protector, both before and after
he rose to that high situation — an opinion, uniformly favourable to
Cromwell’s character as a man, and as a Christian — and which, though it
may have been moderated, was never retracted. I am not prepared to
assert that he retained it, in its full extent, to the end. While Cromwell
appeared humble, disinterested, and sought his country’s good, Owen
gloried 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 made
him forget his former professions, Owen left him to defend himself, and
their intercourse was interrupted. When afterwards accused of being one
412
of those “who promised Cromwell his life, on his last sickness,” Owen’s
reply was short, but satisfactory, “I did not see him in his sickness, nor for
413
some long time before.” The reports of the fanatical prayers of Oliver’s
chaplains are, perhaps, little better founded than this charge.
It is difficult to form an accurate estimate of the true state of religion
during the period of Cromwell’s government. Judging from certain
external appearances, and comparing them with the times which
followed, the opinion must be highly favourable. Religion was the
language and the garb of the court; prayer and fasting were fashionable
exercises; a profession was the road to preferment. Not a play was acted
in all England for many years.
243
And from the prince, to the peasant, to the common soldier, the features
of Puritanism were universally exhibited. Judging again from the
wildness and extravagance of various opinions and practices which then
obtained — and from the fanatical slang and hypocritical grimace which
were adopted by many, merely to answer a purpose — our opinion will
necessarily be unfavourable. The truth, perhaps, lies between the
extremes of unqualified censure, and undistinguishing approval. Making
all due allowance for the infirmity and sin which were combined with the
profession of religion — making every abatement for the inducements,
which then encouraged the use of a religious vocabulary — admitting that
there was even a large portion of pure fanaticism — we still apprehend
that an immense mass of genuine religion would remain. There must
have been a large quantity of sterling coin, when there was such a
circulation of counterfeit. In the best of the men of that period, there was
doubtless a tincture of unscriptural enthusiasm, and the use of a
phraseology revolting to the taste of modern times. In many, there was
perhaps nothing more. But to infer that, therefore, all was base and
unnatural deceit would be unjust and unwise.
“A reformation,” says Jortin, “is seldom carried on, without a heat and vehemence which
borders on enthusiasm. As Cicero has observed, there never was a great man, sine afflatu divino
[without divine inspiration]; so too in times of religious contests, there seldom was a man who
was very zealous for liberty, both civil and evangelical — and who was a declared active enemy to
insolent tyranny, blind superstition, political godliness, bigotry, and pious frauds — who did not
have a fervency of zeal which led him, on some occasions, beyond the bounds of sober temperate
414
reason.”
244
The remark of another profound reasoner, far removed from enthusiasm
himself, are also deserving of attention.
“Many errors in judgment, and some delusions of Satan intermixed with the work, are not any
argument that the work, in general, is not the work of the Spirit of God. However great a pouring
out of the Spirit there may be, it is not to be expected that it should be given now, as it was to the
apostles, infallibly to guide them in points of Christian doctrine. And if many delusions of Satan
appear at the same time that a great religious concern prevails, it is not an argument that the
work, in general, is not the work of the Spirit of God, any more than it was an argument in
 Egypt, that there were no true miracles worked there, because Jannes and Jambres worked false
miracles at the same time, by the hand of the devil. Indeed, the same persons may be the
subjects of much of the influences of the Spirit of God, and yet, in some things, be led away by
the delusions of the devil; and this is no more of a paradox, than many other things that are true
of real saints in the present state, where grace dwells with so much corruption, and the new man
and the old man subsist together in the same person. If some of those who are thought to be
worked upon, fall away into gross errors or scandalous practices, it is no argument that the
work, in general, is not the work of the Spirit. Such things are always expected in a time of
reformation. If we look into church history, we will find no instance of great revival of religion,
that has not been attended with many such things. Thus it was with the Gnostics in the apostles’
time; and thus it was with the several sects of Anabaptists in the time of the reformation. So too
in England, when vital religion greatly prevailed in the days of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell,
415
such things as these abounded.”
245
The application of these judicious remarks is obvious. It is freely
admitted that no religion was necessary to make a man talk about
“seeking God” — to lead him to hear many sermons, and even to make
long prayers. All these things were done by many whose conduct revealed
that their pretensions were more than questionable. But when we find
along with these, fervent zeal for the fruits of righteousness, the glory of
God, and the spiritual and temporal well-being of men; or find active
labours in preaching the gospel, or patient suffering on account of it —
the aspect of religious profession becomes very different. It is impossible
to doubt the sincerity of such persons. Yet such were multitudes in the
416
days of Cromwell, who are reckoned fanatical precisians, or designing
knaves. These very persons became, in the days of Charles II and James,
confessors and martyrs for the truth. The two thousand ejected ministers,
and the ten thousand people who suffered the loss of goods and of liberty
— of country, and even life itself — were for the most part, the generation
of the Commonwealth. Their conduct, perseverance, and sufferings show
that they were not the sickly dreamers and visionary enthusiasts they
have been reckoned, but men of elevated and scriptural piety.
246
During the Commonwealth no system of church government can be
considered as having been properly or fully established. The
Presbyterians, if any, enjoyed this distinction. But the ministers who
occupied the parish churches were of very varied sentiments. Many of
them were secret friends to the old Episcopacy and the liturgy. Many
were for a reformed Episcopal government. Others thought no form of
ecclesiastical polity was of Divine right, nor did they give themselves any
concern about the matter. Some were Independents, and a few were
417
Baptists. Cromwell’s policy encouraged this diversity; as he dreaded
the ascendency of any one party. If the ministers attended to their own
duty and did not interfere with his affairs, then whatever their sentiments
were on church government, it did not prevent the enjoyment of his
favour. This state of things may be considered anarchy and confusion by
many; but it may be questioned whether the great ends of the gospel
ministry were ever more effectually accomplished in this country, than
during this period. No sacrifice of conscience was demanded — no
encroachments on religious liberty were practised — no bounds were
prescribed to zealous exertion for the good of the souls of men. Every
man sat under his vine, and his fig-tree, without fear. — The word of the
Lord had free course, and was glorified.
The influence of the life and death of Cromwell on the profession of
Independency, which he is supposed to have particularly favoured has, I
apprehend, been greatly exaggerated. He has been represented as the
chief instrument of promoting the increase and respectability of that
party; and his death has been spoken of as the most disastrous event that
could befall them.
247
In as much as Independents enjoyed full liberty and protection, and were
considered capable of serving their country under the government of
Cromwell, they were doubtless indebted to him. It would be exceedingly
ungrateful to deny that they enjoyed these blessings in a much greater
degree then, in common with others, than they have ever since. For all
this, let Cromwell receive the praise to which he is entitled. It does not
appear that they were indebted to Cromwell for anything more; and in
some respects, his patronage was hurtful to them rather than useful. As a
body, they had existed long before his name was known; and their
increase and respectability arose from causes altogether independent of
him. He might, indeed, be said to have raised himself in great measure,
by their means. He took advantage of their reputation and influence,
their love of liberty, and hostility to ecclesiastical domination, to shelter
himself and gain his own ends. He climbed on their shoulders to the
summit of ambition, and then he unceremoniously discarded or forgot
them.
The enjoyment of his favour and patronage, to a certain extent, must have
been injurious to the genuine profession of apostolical principles. It may
appear strange that an Independent should declare that he has no wish
that Independents, as such, should become the objects of political
patronage. If indeed the glory of a Christian profession consists in mere
numbers, or in the enjoyment of wealth, or in the possession of worldly
honours, then these views must be extremely foolish. But if its glory
consists in the spiritual character and disposition of its members,
whether few or many, then the honours of a temporal kingdom have no
tendency to promote it. An ingenious member of the Church of England
says,
248
“Pure and genuine Christianity never was, nor ever can be, the national religion of any country
on earth. It is a gold too refined to be worked up with any human institution, without a large
portion of alloy. For no sooner is this small grain of mustard-seed watered with the fertile
showers of civil emoluments, than it grows up into a large and spreading tree, under the shelter
of whose branches the birds of prey and plunder will not fail to make comfortable habitations for
418
themselves, and from there deface its beauty and destroy its fruit.”
When any party of Christians becomes exclusively the object of state
favour, it immediately operates as a bounty on that profession. Every
man who wishes or hopes to rise, has an inducement to enroll himself
under its banners. There will be a visible increase of number and
respectability, but a proportional decrease of piety and purity. The
Independents never were the objects of this exclusive patronage; but in so
far as that profession was considered, during the Commonwealth, to be
more acceptable to the ruling powers than any other, I conceive it must
have derived injury rather than benefit from the circumstance. It would
induce some of those volatile and unprincipled spirits, which always float
in the current of state favour, to hoist the colours of Independency. But
they would be pulled down the first change of wind that occurred. Such
adventurers, whatever their rank, add no real strength to the effective
force of a Christian community; and their dispersion is a blessing rather
than a punishment.
249
In another point of view, also, the patronage of Cromwell and his party
has been injurious to the character of Independency. In the opinion of
many, it has confounded it with revolution and republicanism. To this
day, it is the occasion to represent its adherents as enemies to established
government, or at least to monarchical government. I feel no concern to
deny that there were Independents then who preferred a republic to a
monarchy, especially an unlimited monarchy — as many of the greatest
men of the age, though not Independents, did the same. But I feel
concerned to maintain that there is no link or connexion between the
religious sentiments of Independents, and their views of any form of civil
government. And if the favour of Cromwell has led men to believe that
Independents are naturally, or necessarily, republicans, it has done them
a material injury. In consequence of this mistake, everything of a
revolutionary and sanguinary nature during the above period, has, been
fearlessly charged by some, against this body. To vindicate it is now
unnecessary. It has flourished, in the Scriptural sense of the word, more
under a monarchy than ever it did under a Protector. And the body of
British Independents has always been reckoned among the friends of the
Hanoverian succession, and the steady, uniform, and conscientious
supporters of that illustrious house.
419
“Tillotson told me,” says Bishop Burnet, “that a week after Cromwell’s death, being at
Whitehall by accident, and hearing that there was to be a fast that day in the household, he went
out of curiosity into the presence chamber where it was held. Richard was placed on one side of
a table, with the rest of Cromwell’s family, and six of the preachers were on the other side —
Thomas Goodwin, Owen, Caryl, and Sterry, were of their number.
250
There he heard a great deal of strange stuff, enough to disgust a man forever of that enthusiastic
boldness. God was, as it were, reproached with Cromwell’s services, and challenged for taking
him away so soon. Goodwin, who had pretended to assure them in a prayer, that he was not to
die, which was but a very few minutes before he expired, now had the impudence to say, “You
have deceived us, and we were deceived.”
Sterry, praying for Richard, used those indecent words, “Make him the
brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person.” The
same story is repeated on the authority of Burnet, in Birch’s life of
420
Tillotson.
Without impeaching the veracity either of Tillotson or Burnet, there are
circumstances which induce a strong suspicion of the accuracy of the
anecdote. The gossiping disposition of Burnet led him to commit many
mistakes, and writing down conversations about others long after they
421
were held, was no great security for fidelity. That such a meeting took
place is highly probable; but it looks somewhat suspicious that Tillotson,
who was then only a divinity stripling without a name, should, from mere
curiosity, presume to go into the presence chamber of the Protector on
such an occasion. Burnet does not seem to have adverted to the fact that
Goodwin’s words, with which Tillotson was offended, are the very words
of the prophet Jeremiah, chap. 20.7; and they were used, in all
probability, in the very sense in which the prophet employs them — not
as denoting what God had done, but only what he had permitted men to
do. “You have allowed us to deceive ourselves, and we have been
deceived.”
251
Nothing is put into the mouth of Owen; and I am quite satisfied that he
was not there. We know from himself, that he had not been with
Cromwell on his death-bed, nor long before. He was not one of the
household chaplains, and this was a private household fast. He was not a
favourite of Richard’s, and therefore not likely to be asked on such an
occasion; and still less likely to be a volunteer. The entire story seems a
compound of imperfect recollections, exaggerated in the repetition, with
a view to get a hit at the fanaticism of Cromwell’s chaplains. The denial,
on the part of Owen, of assertions as positively made as those above,
leads us to receive the testimony of the opposite party with great caution;
and where the characters of others are involved, the testimony of bishops
and archbishops ought to be subject to the same laws of evidence which
422
regulate that of other men.
252
Besides the works which Dr. Owen published during his Vice-
chancellorship, and already noted, he had been engaged in preparing
another elaborate performance, which appeared soon after he had
relinquished that office: “Of communion with God the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, each person distinctly, in love, grace, and consolation, etc.”
4to. Oxford, 1657. It appears, from a short preface, that he had preached
on the subject, and then extended it into a considerable treatise. He first
shows that the saints have communion with God in his manifestations of
love and grace toward them, and in their returns of holy gratitude,
confidence, and joy. He then endeavours to establish from Scripture, that
this fellowship is with each of the Divine persons distinctly, as the title of
his work imports; and it proceeds at great length to illustrate the nature
of this fellowship with the Father in love, with the Son in grace, and with
the Holy Spirit in consolation.
There is much delightful and important instruction in this work. Though
the subject arises from the first principles of the economy of salvation, it
embraces matter which is only adapted to the higher form of the
Christian profession. For the full understanding of it, it requires the
possession and vigorous exercise of that spiritual faculty which the
natural man does not enjoy; and which constitutes the vital principle of
the new creature. There is nothing in Christianity corresponding to the
423
Musthxiu (silence) of ancient paganism — no esoteric doctrines, which
are concealed from the common believer. But there are things which
those who only stand in the outer court of the temple, do not know; and
424
which are the singular privilege of those who occupy the penetralia.
There is an initiation which must take place, which is the work, not of
man, but of God; and without this, the visible apparatus of the gospel
425
appears only like pantomimic exhibition, unintelligible and
unimpressive.
253
The eyes of a natural, sinful creature, cannot look at the invisible things
of God. They must undergo an operation similar to unsealing the organs
of vision, as though their eyes were covered by a film which shuts out the
light of heaven. In plain terms, the mind of man must undergo an entire
426
moral revolution — a renewal — in order to understand, relish, and
approve the revelations and felicities of the kingdom of God. The grand
object of this dispensation is not to restore the doctrines of natural
religion; nor to exhibit a perfect code of moral legislation; nor to establish
the certainty of a future state. It does embrace all these; and most men
considered learned in Christendom rest in these — but its sublime
designs reach far beyond these narrow views. They comprehend the
communication of a Divine nature to a sinful creature, and the
bestowment of all things necessary for its support. This progresses till, Phi
1.6 being completely delivered from the corruptions of this world, the
creature receives an abundant entrance into the everlasting kingdom of
the Lord and Saviour. 2Pet 1.11 Sin destroyed or defaced the work of God. It
is the design of the system of mediation to remake it, to create a new
world, consisting of one vast renewed family. At the head of this family is
placed, not an earthly man, frail and mutable, but the only begotten Son
— “the Lord from heaven.” 1Cor 15.47 Man’s rebellion occasioned disorder
in the universe, and interrupted the intercourse between the Creator and
the creature. By Christ, all things are again reconciled and re-united.
Harmony is again restored, and God once more pronounces His work to
be very good. Gen 1.31
254
Only those who are perfect, 1Cor 2.1 that is, divinely taught, 1Th 4.9 will enter
into these views; and only those are likely to understand the work of
Owen on Communion. For what does fellowship with God consist in, but
God’s enjoyment of us, and our enjoyment of God, according to the
established principles of the ministry of reconciliation? Someone who is
destitute of this, knows nothing of the gospel or its great design. He may
discuss its evidences, speculate about its doctrines, and observe its
institutions, but while he is without its immortalising principle, he is only
amusing himself with the leaves, instead of feeding on the fruits of the
tree of life.
As evidence of how little understood these sentiments are, even by those
who think they are (almost) the only true Christians, I may quote the
account which Wood gives of this work.
“In this book he strangely affects, in ambiguous and uncouth words — canting, mystical, and
unintelligible phrases — to obscure, sometimes, the plainest and most obvious truths. And at
other times he endeavours, by such a mist and cloud of senseless terms, to draw a kind of veil
427
over the most erroneous doctrines.”
I do not know that there are half-a-dozen words in the whole book, which
are not perfectly intelligible to any person who understands English. Nor
is there any peculiarity of phraseology, except what distinguishes the
author’s style in all his writings. The darkness which Anthony complains
of, is in the subject, or rather, it was in himself in relation to that subject.
It is not surprising that a blind man does not understand a dissertation
on the nature of colours, or that a deaf man imperfectly comprehends the
doctrine of acoustics — the lack of the faculty sufficiently explains the
reason.
255
It is in no degree more surprising that a man who is a Christian merely by
hereditary descent, or by a nominal profession, does not understand the
essential glory or excellence of the gospel. “The natural man does not
receive the things of the Spirit of God; nor can he know them, because
they are spiritually discerned.” 1Cor 2.14 The deficiency in the one case is
physical, and in the other it is moral — which equally affect the
perceptions of their subjects. But these are materially different in the
responsibility which they involve, as the one is a misfortune, and the
other is a crime.
The strongest objection to the work on Communion is that it is too rigidly
systematic. Few, perhaps, will follow out the Doctor’s views to the extent
to which he carries them, of distinct fellowship with the Father, Son, and
Spirit. The groundwork of his illustrations is indeed in Scripture; but the
same sort of superstructure does not seem to be reared on it. Too many,
or fine distinctions, injure the unity and Divine harmony which pervade
the system of revealed grace; and they ill correspond with that lovely
freedom and unfettered phraseology, which distinguish the inspired
writings. To be indifferent to the importance of correctly expressing
ourselves on all the doctrines of revelation, and to affect greater accuracy
in treating them than the apostles employ, are extremes which are equally
improper and pernicious. If the latter was the fault of Owen and the
theological writers of that period, the former is the great evil of the
present. It was then impossible to misapprehend the sentiments of the
leading writers on every topic of importance connected with Christianity.
256
In regard to many of our most popular theological writers now, it is
extremely difficult to ascertain what is their belief on various subjects,
and those not of trifling importance — yet they glory in this very
circumstance! Whether this arises from imperfect knowledge, from
undervaluing some parts of the Christian system, from fear of losing their
popularity by boldly avowing objectionable truths, or from all these
combined, it is deeply to be regretted. When the writings of such persons
have a powerful influence in directing the tone of the public mind, the evil
alluded to is of serious magnitude.
This production of Owen’s pen is particularly gratifying, considering the
situation of the author while it was composed, and as a specimen of the
discourses he was in the habit of delivering at Oxford. However much he
must have been involved in the dry details of secular business, or secular
learning, it shows how his mind was chiefly affected. No man could more
boldly contend for the cause of liberty, or more warmly advocate the
interests of learning. He was equally an enemy to despotism and
Vandalism. But the salvation of Christ, and the spiritual interests of his
people, were still the grand objects of his attachment and pursuit. His
heart was in his Master’s work, and he was alive to all the glory of his
undertaking. No subordinate object was allowed to occupy that place in
his mind, which spiritual things alone ought to enjoy. And in none of the
extended controversies in which he engaged, does he write with such zeal,
as on communion with God. This invaluable privilege must have been his
solace amidst the distracting labours in which, contrary to his
inclinations, he had become involved.
257
He could probably say of the exercise itself, and the labour of writing it,
what the amiable Bishop Horne does of his work on the Psalms:
“The employment detached him from the bustle and hurry of life, the din of politics, and the
noise of folly. Vanity and vexation flew away for a season; care and disquietude did not come
near his dwelling. He arose fresh as the morning to his task; the silence of the night invited him
to pursue it; and he can truly say that food and rest were not preferred above it. Every part
infinitely improved upon his acquaintance with it, and none gave him uneasiness but the last;
428
for then he grieved that his work was done.”
After nearly twenty years had passed, this work on Communion was still
unmercifully assailed, and became the subject of a protracted controversy
which will afterwards be examined.
Another work, which he produced this year, is of a very different nature.
And it immediately occasioned a controversy to which it will now be
necessary to attend. This was: “Of Schism, the true nature of it revealed
and considered, with reference to the present differences in religion.”
12mo. pp. 280. Ox. 1657. This subject — which somebody justly observes
occasioned a schism about the meaning of the word — Owen endeavours
to illustrate entirely by the light of revelation. He notes the primary
import of the term (a rent or separation of parts in a united substance);
and its moral or analogical meaning (a division of sentiment or affection,
in a religious or political body). He then proceeds to show that the
apostles use the term schism, merely to describe “causeless differences
and contentions among the members of a particular church, contrary to
that love, prudence, and forbearance, which ought to be exercised
towards one another.”
258
That anyone may be guilty of the sin of Schism,
“he must be a member of some one church, constituted by Jesus Christ; and in it, he raises
causeless differences with others, to the interruption of Christian love, and the disturbance of
 429
the due performance of the duties required of the church in the worship of God.”
Hence, it follows that the separation of one church (or many churches)
from other churches, is never described as schism in Scripture —
especially if the body that is seceded from is not of Divine appointment in
its constitution. And it also follows that the separation of an individual
from any church, on account of what affects his conscience, is not the sin
of schism. Hence, all the abusive language of Romanists against
Protestants, and Episcopalians against Presbyterians, and Presbyterians
against Independents — as being schismatics — is utterly misplaced.
Whether any are guilty of this evil, does not depend on the circumstance
of separation, but on the merits of the case, and other parts of conduct.
Owen’s view of the subject is precisely the same as Dr. Campbell’s in his
valuable dissertation on this word schism; the reader is referred to it for
430
further satisfaction as to its scriptural import and use.
What a fruitful source of theological altercation would be dried up, if this
were the interpretation of the term that is adhered to! But this would not
suit the purpose of those who most delight in hurling the brutum fulmen
431
against others. It is a fine thing to make an adversary odious, to fix on
him the character of a schismatic — though it may more justly belong to
the one whose unchristian conduct probably occasioned the separation.
259
“Schism,” says the celebrated Hales of Eaton, “has long been one of those
theological scarecrows with which those who wish to uphold a party in
religion, use to frighten those who, making any inquiry, are ready to
432
relinquish or oppose it, if it appears either erroneous or suspicious.” It
is worthy of remark that the hideous nature of it is seldom urged, except
toward those who leave a community. Let as many schismatics as they
please, come from other bodies into their own community; it is never
hinted that they have been guilty of this crime. This is a strong proof that
the sin of schism is deplored chiefly when it is an offence against men’s
interests, feelings, or authority. Such persons should think of the witty
Vincent Alsop’s remark: —
“Schism is an ecclesiastical cannon which, being overcharged and ill managed, recoils and hurts
the cannoneer. He that undertakes to play this great gun needs to be very careful, and sponge it
433
well, lest it fire at home.”
Owen’s work had little connexion with any party sentiments, as its
principle was equally available to all parties of Protestants. Yet, all of
them being schismatics in the ordinary sense of the term (in their relation
to others), it soon met with several opponents. The first of these was Dr.
Hammond, who subjoined to his continuation of the Defence of Grotius,
“A reply to some passages of the Reviewer in his late book about Schism.”
his reply relates chiefly to the state of Episcopacy in the times succeeding
the apostles; and on this account, Owen took little notice of it.
260
Another answer was from the pen of Mr., Giles Firmin, who wrote “Of
Schism, Parochial Congregations, and Ordination by imposition of hands,
in which Dr. Owen’s revealing of the true nature of Schism is briefly and
friendly examined.” 8vo. pp. 157. 1658. The book corresponds with the
title, and is written in a very Christian spirit. The object of it is to show
that Schism may be a more extensive evil than Dr. Owen’s definition
admits. He therefore defines it, “The dissolution of that unity which
Christ, our Lord, requires in his church” — which may extend to the
whole visible profession of Christianity. This of course depends on the
extension of the analogical meaning of the term. But on the whole, there
is no very material difference between Owen and Firmin. Alluding to him,
the Doctor said, rather severely, that Firmin neither understood him, nor
434
the things which he wrote about. Mr. Firmin had been in New England
several years; but when he wrote this treatise, he was pastor of the church
at Shalford, in Essex. He was a very respectable man; an eminent scholar,
especially in the Oriental languages — well read in the Fathers, Church
435
history, and religious controversies. If he was a Presbyterian, he was so
moderate a one, as to be mistaken by Edwards (of Gangrene celebrity) for
an Independent.
But the most violent adversary of the Doctor on this occasion, was Mr.
Daniel Cawdry, “Preacher of the word at Billingmagn,
Northamptonshire” — a high-flying Presbyterian. He produced, in the
same year in which the Doctor’s work appeared, a pamphlet, the title of
which at once begs the question, and forestalls the proof; “Independency
a great schism.” 12mo. pp. 200. Lond. 1657.
261
The first sentence of this work corresponds with what we said about the
use made of the charge of Schism, and with the dogmatic title of the book.
“The crime of Schism is so heinous in itself, and so dangerous and
noxious to the cause of God, that no invectives against the evils of it can
well be too great or high.” So all parties have exclaimed (who arrogate to
themselves the exclusive character of the true church) against those who
have had the temerity to call into question their claims, and to dissent
from their fellowship.
When it is stated that this fiery zealot speaks of “reaping with lamentation
the cursed fruits of toleration and forbearance in religion;” that he
represents toleration as “doing more towards rooting religion out of the
hearts of men in seven years, than enforcing uniformity did in seventy;”
and that he generally terms it “a cursed, intolerable toleration;” — the
reader will easily guess at his spirit, and perhaps have little inclination to
examine his arguments. The design of the pamphlet is to prove that
Independents had been guilty of a great schism in gathering churches out
of Presbyterian congregations. This was the unpardonable sin of which
they were considered guilty at this period. In many instances, it was not
true. For in reply to this very charge, the Prefacers to the Savoy
Declaration say: —
“Let it be further considered that we have not broken from them, or their order, by these
differences — rather, they broke from us. And in that respect, we less deserve their censure, our
practice being no other than what it was in our breaking from Episcopacy — and long before
Presbytery, or any such form as they are now in, was taken up by them. And we will not say how
probable it is that the yoke of Episcopacy would have been upon our neck to this day, if some
such way, as formerly and is now termed Schism, had not been practised with much suffering,
and since continued in.”
262
But Cawdry had more objects than one to accomplish by his work. It
contained an Appendix, “Showing the inconstancy of the Doctor; and the
inconsistency of his former and present opinions.” The proof of Owen’s
inconstancy and inconsistency amounts to this: in 1643, being then
connected with the Presbyterians, he published a Treatise in which he
speaks on some points as a Presbyterian. In 1657, having been an
Independent for at least ten years — as all the world knew — he published
a book which contains sentiments bearing upon Independency. Ergo,
Owen is inconsistent and unstable! Alas! for the logic of poor Daniel
Cawdry. Men sometimes endeavour to bring an opponent into disgrace by
such pitiful means.
Owen was not hesitant to reply. In the course of a few weeks he produced,
“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 by Mr. Daniel Cawdry. Ox. 1657.” 12mo. pp.
181. He assures us in the Preface, that it was the work of only four or five
days, which was all the time he could devote to it, and all he thought it
deserved. He meets and repels the charges of his adversary with much
firmness, and strengthens his original position. He informs us, “That
such was his unhappiness, or rather happiness, in the constant
intercourse he had with Presbyterians, both Scotch and English, which
was utterly of another frame of spirit — that, till he saw this treatise, he
did not believe there remained one godly person in England of such
dispositions, in reference to present differences.”
263
He successfully shows that Cawdry had completely failed in making out
his charge of Schism and of inconsistency, against his brethren and
Owen. He concludes the defence of his changes, which we have fully
narrated, by simply remarking, “Whoever can glory that in fourteen years
he has not altered his conceptions of some things, shall not have me for
436
his rival.”
The controversy did not terminate here. The next year Cawdry returned
to the charge, in “Independency further proved to be a Schism, etc.”
12mo. 1658. pp. 158. This production abounds with personalities, though
the author feels that he had already committed himself. Indeed, Cawdry
seems to have been a contradiction hunter, for this is not his first attack
of the same kind on Independency, and on the personal characters of
those who professed it. He had published, in 1645, a 4to. volume,
“Vindiciae Clavium,” against “Cotton’s Keys of the kingdom of Heaven.”
— And in 1651, another 4to. in vindication of it — “The inconsistency of
the Independent way with Scripture and itself;” in which he reveals the
same rancorous spirit against Cotton and Hooker, which he does in his
attack on Owen; and the same zealous desire to find contradictions, with
little more success. The manuscript of Cotton’s reply to the personal
charges of Cawdry, had come into Dr. Owen’s hands, just as his own
answer had gone through the press. Therefore, immediately after the
second attack of Cawdry appeared, Owen published — “A Defence of Mr.
John Cotton from the imputation of self-contradiction, charged on him
by Mr. Daniel Cawdry: written by himself, not long before his death: To
which is prefixed, an Answer to a late Treatise of the said Mr., Cawdry,
about the nature of Schism.” 12mo. Ox. 1658.
264
This small treatise is nearly equally divided between Cotton and Owen.
The Doctor shows that Cawdry and his brethren were as loudly, and with
more apparent justice, charged with being Schismatics by the
Episcopalians, as the Independents were by the Presbyterians.
“For we deny,” he says, “that since the gospel came into England, the Presbyterian government,
as stated by them, was ever set up except by the wishes of a party of men. So that here still,
unless as it lies in particular congregations, where our right is as good as theirs, none have
separated from it that I know of, though many cannot consent to it. The first ages we plead are
437
ours; the following were unquestionably Episcopal.” p. 79.
Cotton, whose defence the Doctor published, was a person for whom
Owen had very high respect. He was a man of extensive learning, solid
piety, and laborious exertion in the cause of Christ. Owen had been, in
part, indebted to his writings for his own sentiments as an Independent.
He was one of the first of the New England Congregationalists who wrote
on the subject of church government. His writings had a very extensive
influence, both in that country, and in England. His work on “The Keys of
the kingdom of Heaven,” contains the substance of the argument for the
Independent polity. Though he occasionally uses language in it which few
Independents would now be disposed to employ; and he speaks of the
power of councils in a way that is not consistent with his leading
principles.
265
On the subject of the Magistrate’s interference in religion, also, both his
writings and his conduct prove that, in some respects, he was far from
perfection. This was not the first attack he had to sustain on his Work on
the Keys. It had been taken up by Baillie in his “Dissuasive from the
errors of the times;” in which Cotton and his brethren were loaded with
calumnies and defamation; — and by Samuel Rutherford, with more
argument and moderation, in his “Due right of Presbyteries;” — and by
Cawdry, as I already noted, in his “Vindiciae Clavium.” Cotton replied to
all these with much Christian temper, in his “Way of the Congregational
Churches cleared” from the aspersions of Baillie, the contradictions of
Cawdry, and the misconstructions of Rutherford. These works, which
were mostly considerable volumes, show how deeply the controversy
about Church Government then occupied the minds of men; and how
keenly some of the leading writers of the period engaged in it. Those who
wish to know all that is possible to be said for Presbytery and
Independency, have only to consult them. They contain much extraneous
matter, and a great lack of moderation on both sides. But they literally
exhaust the subject, and I suppose they must have exhausted the writers
themselves, nearly as much as they now exhaust the reader. It is matter of
wonder and regret, that the subject could not be disposed of with less
labour, and less acrimony. The last defence of Cotton, and Owen’s
vindicatory preface, put an end to his collisions with Cawdry, and to the
Schism controversy. And here terminates our account of it. “Gaudete
omnes arenam video.” [Rejoice all in the arena, who see it.]
266
Owen’s next work, which was produced partly in 1658, and partly in the
following year, is a thick 12mo volume. The nature and objects of it are
fully explained in the extended title page.
“Of the Divine origin, authority, self-evidencing light, and power of the Scriptures. With an
Answer to that Enquiry, How we know the Scriptures are the word of God. Also, a Vindication of
the purity and integrity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testament; in some
considerations on the Prolegomena, and Appendix to the recent Biblia Polyglotta. To which are
438
subjoined some exercises about the nature and perfection of the Scripture, the right of
interpretation, internal light, revelation, etc.”
This is rather a curious miscellany. Prefixed to the whole contents is a
dedication to, “His reverend and worthy friends, the Prebends of Christ
Church College, with all the Students in Divinity in that Society.” In the
first tract are some very excellent observations on what is generally
understood by the internal evidence of the Bible; or that which satisfies
the mind of a Christian, that in trusting to the revealed method of
salvation, he is not following a cunningly devised fable. The Doctor rests
his reasonings chiefly on two things: the light and the efficacy of the
truth. As it is the nature of light not only to make other things manifest,
but to bring the evidence of its own existence along with it; so the
beamings of the majesty, truth, holiness, and authority of God in the
Bible, distinguish it from all counterfeits, and commend it to the
conscience — which it illuminates, sanctifies, and judges. The effects it
produces in subjugating human antipathies to itself, and the cure of
moral disease, are also strong proofs of its heaven-derived power. It is the
force of this internal evidence — the perception of the excellence,
suitableness, and glory of the Divine revelation of mercy in the gospel —
that induces the great body of Christians to receive it.
267
Being made, “the wisdom and the power of God” to their salvation, they
have the strongest possible evidence of its Divine nature and origin.
However complete and satisfactory the external testimony is, it does
comparatively little for the conversion of men; as in most instances the
gospel is rejected, not from lack of evidence, but from hatred or
indifference to its subject. The argument of Owen has been largely
addressed by others, though by few more fully or satisfactorily than by
himself. The same views are brought forward by Professor Halyburton in
a Treatise on the Reason of Faith (appended to his work on natural and
revealed religion), and by President Jonathan Edwards in his Treatise on
Religious Affections.
While this tract was in the press, the Prolegomena and Appendix to the
London Polyglot, were put into Owen’s hands. In consequence of that, he
delayed the publication of his tract till he examined that volume; and his
examination produced the second tract in this work. The object of the
former treatise was to evince, “That as the Scriptures were immediately
given by God himself, His mind being represented to us in them; so by
His providential dispensation, his whole word is preserved entire in the
original languages.” He now contended that if any corruption were
allowed to creep into the text of Scripture, all his reasonings would be
subverted, the foundation of faith weakened, and the providence of God
would appear to have been careless concerning the preservation of the
Divine word. He was sadly afraid that if some of Walton’s principles were
admitted, that Popery would obtain advantage on the one hand, and
infidelity on the other.
268
The “Biblia Polyglotta Waltoni,” is by far the most valuable and
439
important biblical work that ever issued from the British press. It has
rendered immense service to the criticism and interpretation of the
Scriptures, and conferred immortal honour on its projectors and editor.
Several works of the same nature had been previously published abroad:
such as the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, in 1517; the
Antwerp Polyglot, published at the expense of Philip the Second of Spain,
in 1572; and the Paris Polyglot of Le Jay, in 1645. These works had all
been edited in the most sumptuous manner, and at great expense. And
what is very extraordinary, the world had been entirely indebted for them
to the zeal and liberality of Catholic princes, prelates, or private
440
individuals. None of the Protestant princes or patrons of learning, had
yet attempted any work of this nature. It was reserved for England to
wipe away this reproach; and that was not done during the reign of her
royal “Defenders of the Faith,” nor under the auspices of her richly
beneficed Bishops; but during the reign of fanaticism, and under the
patronage of the Prince of fanatics — OLIVER CROMWELL — though his
name was afterwards ungraciously blotted out!
Brian Walton, D.D., afterwards Bishop of Chester, was the principal
projector and editor of the work; but he was assisted by a number of the
learned members of Cambridge and Oxford, in conducting it through the
press. It was the first British work published by subscription [£50 each].
The Protector allowed five thousand reams of paper to be imported for it,
free of duty; and he otherwise assisted in defraying its expense.
269
It was finished in 1657. By its fulness, accuracy, and convenience for
consultation, it far surpassed all former works of the kind, and it remains
to this day [1820] the most complete collection of the sacred writings ever
published.
It appears, at first, somewhat surprising that Dr. Owen would have
viewed this work with jealousy or disapproval. But this surprise ceases
when we reflect on the school of sacred learning in which he had been
bred; and to which, from principle, he was still attached; and to which the
great body of Hebrew scholars then belonged. Upon the revival of
learning, Hebrew literature was almost entirely in the hands of the Jews.
The few Christians who acquired from them any acquaintance with it,
received implicitly the dogmas of the Rabbins, who were supposed to be
profoundly versed in the criticism of their sacred books. Two of these
dogmas were inculcated as matters of faith, as well as questions of fact
and criticism: — the immaculate purity of the Hebrew text, and the
Divine origin of the points and accents. Little knowledge of the state of
the Hebrew manuscripts then existed (the science of criticism was in its
infancy). There was no knowledge whatever of some of the ancient
versions; and knowledge about all of them was exceedingly limited and
imperfect. The Controversies between the Catholics and the Reformed
affected this as well as other subjects. The former unduly extolled the
merits of the Vulgate, and depreciated the value of the original Scriptures.
The latter went to the other extreme, and treated with unmerited
disrespect, the Latin version, the Septuagint, and all the other early
translations. It was looked on as a point of the Protestant faith to
maintain these views; and it was dangerous to an individual’s character to
deviate far from them.
270
As general knowledge increased, the true principles of criticism came to
be better understood; the importance of the ancient versions was more
justly estimated; and doubts began to be entertained respecting the two
positions which, till then, had been most surely believed. Several learned
men had hinted their suspicion of the Divine origin of the Hebrew points;
but the first who assailed it at any length was Lewis Capel, Professor of
Hebrew in the Protestant college of Saumur. His “Arcanum punctuationis
Revelatum,” published in 1624; and his “Critica Sacra,” in 1650, may be
said to have begun and finished the controversy. The latter work — the
labour of thirty-six years, brought such a mass of learning and evidence
to bear upon the contested subjects, that it left comparatively little to be
done by others. Yet, such was the state of the literary republic at the time,
that the work was refused admission to the press by the prohibitory
principles of foreign Protestants. After ten years of fruitless application
441
for an imprimatur, it was at last printed at Paris by his son, who was a
442
Catholic.
The cause of the points, and of the Hebrew verity, was warmly
maintained by the Buxtorfs, by the celebrated Glassius, and many others.
The doctrines of Capellus were adopted and defended by Morinus,
Vossius, Grotius, and other names of great celebrity. It is therefore no
impeachment of Dr. Owen’s learning, that he was of the ancient, rather
than of the modern opinion on this question. It was that which was
supposed to be most advantageous to the Protestant interest which the
lovers of the word of God were considered bound to maintain, and which
many of the greatest scholars and theologians then in Europe, most hotly
supported.
271
The question of the various readings has long since been set to rest by the
immense collections of Mill and Kennicott, of De Rossi and Griesbach.
On the subject of the points, different opinions are still entertained; but
on all sides, less importance is attached to them than when the
controversy was first agitated. The progress of Hebrew literature has
revealed that the fears entertained by Owen respecting the doctrines of
the Polyglot, were wholly groundless; and his language — that those who
asserted that the Scriptures had suffered in the same manner as other
books, bordered on atheism — was rash and improper, as the event has
proved. He disclaims all personal motives in the considerations he was
led to throw out on the Polyglot; he professes not to have been acquainted
with Walton, and little acquainted with his chief co-adjutors; and he
pretends to no profound acquaintance with the class of literature to
which the Prolegomena and Appendix of the Polyglot properly belong. It
is unnecessary now to canvass his objections. His fears magnified his
expectations of danger, and multiplied his difficulties. Neither the cause
of sacred learning, nor his own fame, would have suffered if he had never
written a sentence on the subject.
He was not allowed to pass unanswered. Walton immediately published
an able, but ill-tempered reply. “The Considerator considered, and the
Biblia Polyglotta Vindicated,” etc. 12mo. 1659, pp. 293. It cannot be
concealed, and should not be denied, that Walton had the better of his
antagonist in this controversy. He possessed eminent learning, great
critical acumen, and all that patient industry which was necessary for the
successful prosecution of his very arduous undertaking.
272
These qualifications, combined with abundance of leisure, the assistance
of learned associates, and enthusiastic devotedness to the cause which he
espoused, enabled Walton to bring his original work to a perfection that
left all its predecessors far behind — and to meet any antagonist, with
advantages of whose importance he was sufficiently aware. The time and
talents of Owen had been chiefly devoted to very different pursuits. In
doctrinal, exegetical, and controversial theology, he then had but few
equals, and no superior. In these departments, he shone with
distinguished lustre; he consecrated all the faculties and ardour of no
ordinary mind, to their cultivation. His public labours and numerous
writings must have left him but little time or inclination for the dry
pursuits of verbal criticism. On this account, it would have been better if
he left the subject to others. But while I freely concede the palm of victory
in this contest to Walton, it is impossible to compliment the spirit with
which he fought for and achieved it. He never condescends so much as to
name Owen, although the work which he answers was not anonymous.
He breathes a tone of defiance and contempt, both uncalled for and
unsuitable. But it was probably dictated as much by the political changes
in prospect, as by a personal dislike of Owen. The ex-Vice-chancellor of
Oxford, though not then “A son of the Church of England,” — a title to
which Walton attached no ordinary importance — was not unworthy to
be named with the most learned of her progeny. Even the Editor of the
Polyglot was not entitled to school him like a dunce. His remarks on the
motives and designs of Owen are bitter and unchristian, and only reflect
dishonour on himself.
273
And surely the man who, after enjoying the favour of CROMWELL, had the
ingratitude to erase his acknowledgment of it, and to insert the name of
CHARLES, from whom his work had derived no benefit (though afterwards
it procured its author a bishopric) does not have the highest claims to
443
credit for Christian simplicity and sincerity. Let it only be remarked, in
conclusion, that if John Owen could not have produced the Polyglot, still
less could Bishop Walton have written the Commentary on the Hebrews.
“The Restoration which soon followed,” says Bishop Marsh, “put an end to the controversy; and
within a few months after Charles the Second’s return, Dr. Walton was promoted to the See of
Chester. The prejudices excited by Owen’s pamphlet, and the false conclusions which he drew
from that variety of readings, unavoidably resulting from a multitude of copies, did not indeed
immediately subside. But those prejudices and apprehensions were at least mitigated by the
endeavours of Dr. Fell, who published (as he relates in his Preface) an edition of the Greek
444
Testament for that purpose.”
274
The third Tract in this volume of Owen’s, is in Latin, and is chiefly
designed for the Quakers. It is rather singular that he should have
criticised the Polyglot in English, and the Friends in Latin; and that he
should have joined as the object of the same attack, the greatest learning
and the greatest fanaticism in the country. Walton took care to notice
this, and not to the advantage of the Doctor. His “Exercitationes adversus
Fanaticos,” roused an adversary among the Quakers, who was not less
fiery (though less learned) than the Editor of the Polyglot. This was
Samuel Fisher, originally a Minister of the church, afterwards a Baptist,
and finally a Quaker. He was a man said to have been of eminent virtue,
445
piety, and learning. The reply to Owen is part of a 4to. volume of 600
pages, the title of which I quote for the amusement of the reader.
“The Rustics alarm to the Rabbis: or, the Country correcting the University and Clergy, and not
without good cause, contesting for the truth against nursing mothers and their children; in four
apologetical exercises in which is contained, as well, a general account to all inquirers, as a
general answer to all opposers of the most truly Catholic, and most truly Christ-like Christians,
called Quakers, and of the true Divinity of their doctrine. By way of entire intercourse held in
special with four of the Clergies’ chieftains, viz John Owen, D.D., recent Dean of Christ church;
Thomas Danson, M. A., once Fellow of Magdalen College, since one of the Seers for the town of
Sandwich; John Tombes, B. D., once of Bewdly, since of Lemster; Richard Baxter, Minister at
Kidderminster, another eminent master in this English Israel — which four fore-men hold the
sense and senseless faith of the whole Fry, and write out the sum of what is, or is to be said, by
the whole fraternity of fiery fighters against the true light of Christ, and its true children. By
Samuel Fisher, who sometimes went astray, as a lost sheep among the many shepherds, but has
now returned to the Great Shepherd, and Overseer of the soul.” 1660.
275
The confidence, abusive language, and absurdities of this production, are
beyond all description. Had Samuel Fisher designed to show how wise
and righteous he was in his own estimation, and how entirely he despised
others, he could not have taken a more effectual method of doing it, than
by writing this book. Yet, this strange man was a distinguished leader
among the Quakers; he endeavoured to deliver the burden of the word of
the Lord to Parliament, and actually attempted a mission to Rome to
446
convert the Pope! It is extraordinary that a body so measured in its
phrases, and meek in its manners, as the Quakers appear to be, should
have produced such fiery spirits as Fisher, whose intemperate language
certainly affords strong proof that he did not speak by the Spirit of Jesus.
Richard Cromwell succeeded in peace to the chair of his father. But not
possessing the talents or the courage necessary to occupy it he soon
deserted it for the quieter and more comfortable repose of private life. To
follow the ever-shifting scenes of the political stage, between the death of
Cromwell and the restoration of the monarchy, would lead me too far
away from the immediate design of this work. I shall therefore confine
myself entirely to the conduct of Owen during this busy and perplexing
period, as far as it can be ascertained.
276
Among the first acts of Richard’s government was the summoning of a
Parliament, which met on the 27th of January, 1659. On the 4th of
February following, we find Dr. Owen preaching before it at a private fast.
The subject is, “The glory and interest of nations professing the Gospel.”
From the dedication to the House, it appears that some false reports had
been circulated about the sentiments of the discourse, respecting forms of
civil government. Nothing of a political nature, however, occurs in the
sermon — and Owen declares that no sentiments of his would interfere
with any form of civil government on earth, righteously administered.
The minds of men were then in a state of great agitation; and in such
circumstances, it is scarcely possible to speak publicly without
occasioning suspicion or misconception.
The army was divided into two factions: the Wallingford-house party
which was for a Commonwealth; and the Presbyterian party which, along
with the majority of the Parliament, was for the Protector. The former
party, of which Fleetwood and Desborough were the heads, invited Dr.
Owen and Dr. Manton to their consultations. Dr. Owen went to prayer
before they entered on business; but Manton, being late before he came,
heard a loud voice from within, saying, “He must down, and he shall
down.” Manton knew the voice to be Owen’s, and understood him to
447
mean the deposing of Richard; and therefore he would not go in.
277
Such is Neal’s account of a very singular affair. If Manton heard no more
than the words printed in italics, it is strange that he should have put
such a construction on them. They might allude to the Pope, or the Grand
Turk, as much as to Richard Cromwell. It is not like Owen’s usual
prudence to vociferate sedition at a private meeting, so loudly as to be
heard outside the door; and do that before the Council had deliberated.
448

In Baxter’s own life, the most positive charges are preferred against
Owen, as the grand instrument in pulling down Richard.
“He gathered a church at Lieut.-General Fleetwood’s quarters, consisting of the active officers of
the army. In this assembly, it was determined that Richard’s Parliament must be dissolved; and
then he quickly fell himself. — Dr. Owen was the chief that headed the Independents in the
army; and afterwards he had been the great persuader of Fleetwood, Desborough, and the rest of
the officers of the army (who were his gathered church), to compel Richard to dissolve his
449
Parliament.”
In attending to these statements, it must be remembered that they
proceed from a man who, though honest in his intentions, entertained
very violent prejudices against the Independents, and Dr. Owen in
particular. They were not made public till after Owen’s death, when Owen
could not defend himself. And though Sylvester, the Editor of Baxter’s
life, applied to the Doctor’s Widow to explain these passages if she could,
probably thinking it an invidious task for anyone to rake up the ashes of
her husband, she left him to do what he pleased.
278
But the internal evidence is by no means in favour of the correctness of
these statements. It would appear from them, that Owen had collected
the Wallingford-house party, instead of being called in to pray at its
deliberations. According to Neal, this party was Owen’s church, and
among the other deliberations of this body, the propriety of deposing the
Protector was introduced! Credat Judaeus Apella! Owen had no church
at Wallingford-house; his stated residence was in Oxford. Some of the
officers of the party were Independents, and probably looked up to him
for occasional advice. This, I believe, was the extent of his connexion with
their proceedings.
But we do not need to rest the defence of Owen on these general
reasonings. We can adduce evidence of the most conclusive nature, in
reply to these charges of political interference. He was accused in Fiat
Lux (a book we will speak about later), of being part of that dismal
tempest which overbore not only church and state, but reason, right,
honesty, all true religion, and even good nature. To this sweeping charge,
the Doctor replies:
“Let me inform you, that the author of the criticisms, (on Fiat Lux) is a person, who never had a
hand in, nor gave consent to the raising of any war in these nations; nor to any political
alterations in them, no — not to anyone who was among us during our revolutions. But he
acknowledges that he lived and acted under them, the things in which he thought his duty
consisted; and challenges all men to charge him with doing the least personal injury to any,
450
professing himself ready to give satisfaction to anyone that can justly claim it.”
279
In Vernon’s letter to a Friend, the charge of pulling down Richard is
directly preferred against him. To which he answers:
“Of the same nature is what he affirms — of my being the instrument in the ruin of Richard
Cromwell, with whose setting up and pulling down I had no more to do than himself; and the
451
same answer must be returned again, as to the Friar, Mentitur impudentissime.”
452
Knowing these solemn asseverations — as Baxter must or might have
known; and as his Editor, Sylvester, probably knew — there is something
very unchristian in still maintaining charges of so serious a nature, on the
authority of reports.
 “To all these,” says the writer of Owen’s Memoirs, “we may add the testimony of the Rev. James
Forbes of Gloucester, in a letter to a minister now living in London. ‘There is still a worthy
minister alive who can bear witness that Dr. Owen was against the pulling down of Richard
Cromwell; for a message came to him: You must preach for Dr. Owen such a day at Whitehall,
for he is sick, and the cause of his present illness is his dissatisfaction at what they are doing at
453
Wallingfordhouse.’”
Notwithstanding the strength and fulness of the above evidence, in
Calamy’s continuation of Baxter’s Life, there is another laboured attempt
454
to fix the above charge on Dr. Owen. All the circumstances we have
noted are brought forward; with another — an acknowledgment said to
have been made by Owen to Baxter, that he was an agent in pulling down
Richard’s Parliament, and Baxter. But can it be conceived that Owen
should have made such an acknowledgment in private, and publicly
declare what Baxter must have known to be false?
280
To say nothing of his character, there would be a degree of folly in such
conduct, of which we cannot suppose him to be guilty From what he knew
of Baxter’s itch for scribbling, he could not doubt that he would embrace
the first opportunity to proclaim from the house-top what had been told
in his ear. And accordingly, the Doctor was scarcely in his grave when this
455
ungenerous attack was made on his memory. Baxter was a rash man,
and his repetition of a conversation many years after it had been held, is
not to be compared with the public and solemn testimony of a man of
Owen’s established reputation for religion and uprightness. Dr. Calamy’s
attempt to prove that Owen had told a public lie, is by no means
honourable to him, and it savours strongly of that party prejudice which
is marked in several parts of his otherwise valuable work.
In the memoirs of Ludlow, we have some account of the part which Owen
took in the restoration of the Long Parliament, an event which occurred
after the deposition of Richard. And if Owen favoured it, then it is a
strong proof of his disinterestedness, because he and his party could hope
for little favour from the Long Parliament. From Ludlow’s account, which
we have every reason to believe is correct, the fall of Richard was
occasioned by various concurring circumstances: the indecision of the
Protector himself; divisions in the army, and offence given by him to
some of the leading officers; his taking part with the Presbyterians, and
thereby exciting fears among the Independents for the safety of religion
and of religious liberty.
281
After he was brought down, and his Parliament dissolved, the republican
party was strongly pressed to restore the Long Parliament. It was alleged
that there was not a sufficient number of members left to make up a
Parliament. “Upon this, Dr. John Owen,” says Ludlow, “having desired
me to give him a list of their names, I delivered him one, in which I had
marked those who had sat in the house since the year 1648, and were yet
alive, amounting to the number of about 160. The Doctor having perused
456
it, carried it to those at Wallingford-house.” In the end, the Long
Parliament was restored; it rewarded its restorers with restrictive laws
and deprivation of places.
We need not wonder at the misrepresentations to which Owen, and
others similarly placed, were exposed. The period between the death of
Oliver and the restoration of Charles was exceedingly unsettled. Owen
must have been filled with various fears and anxieties. The return of a
civil war, or the establishment of Presbyterian uniformity, or the
restoration of monarchical despotism, must have been equally frightful to
contemplate; and yet one or another of these events seemed unavoidable.
It was the duty of every man who wished well to his country, and who
loved religion, to prevent, if possible, the effusion of blood, the
reorganization of civil tyranny, or the exercise of ecclesiastical
oppression. To err in such circumstances by giving well-meant advice,
though it might eventually prove injudicious, is more honourable both to
the patriot and the Christian, than cold neutrality, which looks with
indifference on the tempest, and afterwards smiles at the calm.
282
Owen preached before Parliament for the last time on the 8th of May,
457
1659; the second day after it had met. In the month of August
following, the Congregational Churches in London desired leave to raise
458
three regiments for the Parliament, and obtained its consent to do so.
They had become exceedingly alarmed for their liberty, and not without
459
cause. Monk had for some time been playing a part. Formerly he acted
with the Independents; now he was seemingly disposed to support the
Presbyterians. Apprehensions were entertained about the march of his
army into England. To ascertain his real sentiments and intentions, Caryl
and Barker were dispatched to Scotland with a letter to him from Dr.
Owen, in name of the Independent Churches, to which it was thought
Monk belonged. Colonel Whally and Major-General Gough were
associated with the ministers, and both were members of the same
communion. At Newcastle they were joined by Mr. Hammond, and in
Scotland by Mr. Collins — both very respectable and useful Independent
460
ministers. They had an interview with Monk and some other officers of
the army at Holyroodhouse. Caryl told him they did not come to deliver
their sense of the General’s proceedings, but the sense of the churches
which had given them no commission to enter into the merits of the
cause, nor to debate whether Lambert’s action in turning out the
Parliament were justifiable or not. They were only to present to his
Lordship their opinion that he did not have a call to appear against it in
that manner — that his Lordship only had charge to keep Scotland quiet
— and that he was not bound to take notice of any differences that
happened in England. Caryl proceeded to assign reasons why the General
should go on no farther. Ad finally, he assured him that whatever
happened, it would be laid at his door, as he would be considered the
461
originator of the war.
283
The reasonings of the Commissioners with Monk proceed entirely on the
ground of the connexion subsisting between the churches and him. From
this they considered themselves bound to expostulate with him on the
impropriety of involving the nation in war, occasioning much evil to his
brethren, and perhaps being instrumental in bringing back a state of
things that would be ruinous both to civil and religious freedom. They
could make nothing of Monk, however. He sent them back with a letter
addressed to Dr. Owen, Mr. Greenhill, and Mr. Hook, full of meaningless
compliments, hypocritical professions, and promises that he never
462
intended to fulfill. It must have satisfied them that they had everything
to fear, and nothing to hope, from his march into England. His character
was a compound of selfishness and hypocrisy. He swallowed oaths
without ceremony, and broke them without remorse. He deceived all
463
parties, but stood true to his own interest to the end. The
Independents offered to stand by their friends in Parliament, and to force
Monk back into Scotland. Owen and Nye had frequent consultations with
Whitelocke and St. John. And at a private treaty with the officers at
Wallingford-house, they offered to raise one hundred thousand pounds
for the use of the army, provided it would protect them in their religious
liberties — apprehensive that Monk and the Presbyterians designed to
subvert them.
284
But those officers had lost their credit; their measures were broken and
disconcerted. One party was for a treaty; and another for the sword. Their
old veteran regiments were dislodged from the city, and Monk was in
464
possession.
The anxiety of the Independents is easily accounted for. Their very
existence was at stake; for they had nearly as much to fear from the
power of the Presbyterians, as from the return of the king. They only
wanted protection and liberty. But they knew neither party would agree
to these moderate demands, once they obtained power. It does them
honour that they were willing to make any sacrifices, rather than part
with privileges more valuable than life itself. The Presbyterians, however,
completely predominated. Everything was in a train for the restoration of
the king, to whom they looked forward with all the fondness and
confidence of a promised saviour. Among other preparations for this
event, on the 3d of March 1660, the question between Dr. Reynolds and
Dr. Owen, about the Deanery of Christ Church, was referred by the House
of Commons to a Committee. On the 13th of the same month, by a vote of
465
the House, Owen was discharged and Reynolds restored to his place.
Previous to this, Wood says he and Goodwin had been removed from
preaching at St. Mary’s, by the endeavours of the Presbyterians. If this
was so, it was a most ungrateful return for the kindness and liberality
with which Owen had uniformly treated that party. The Doctor did not
take his ejection very meekly, according to Vernon, who represents him
as saying: “I have built seats at Mary’s, but let the Doctors find auditors,
466
for I will preach at Peter’s in the east.”
285
Thus terminated Dr. Owen’s connexions with the Commonwealth, and
with the public politics of his time. I am unable to affirm that they never
proved a snare to him, nor involved him in conduct and discussions
foreign to the business of the Christian ministry. We have his own
authority for believing that many of the scenes through which he passed
were not to his liking; and his writings sufficiently prove that his mind
sustained little injury from his circumstances. The very reports and
misrepresentations to which his conduct gave rise, however, show how
dangerous a thing it is for a Minister of the Gospel to be connected with
political parties, or concerned in their proceedings. In ordinary
circumstances, this can be easily avoided; but Owen must have been often
so situated as not to have the power to act entirely in his own hands.
When this is the case, it becomes us to judge charitably, even when we
cannot fully approve. With his talents, and the degree of popularity which
he obtained, in the providence of God, he probably could seldom have
acted differently from what he did. And wherever our information is
sufficient, his conduct allows for a defence, rather than an apology. It is
beyond doubt that his motives were pure, and his aims disinterested; that
he had at heart the interests of religion, and the welfare of his country. If
he could not keep himself entirely unspotted from the world, or at all
times justly avoid its censure, we have only to remember what he himself
would have been the first to confess — that he was a sinful, fallible
creature, who made no claim to perfection. But how comparatively few
have acted such a part, on such a theatre, and borne away so large a
portion of fair and solid reputation. If our knowledge of his history were
more perfect, I am satisfied that it would be increased, rather than
diminished.
286
From here, we must follow his steps through other scenes. They are less
splendid in the estimation of the world, but more important in
themselves, and more glorious in the eye of God:
defending the faith from the press
467
illustrating it in the conventicle
and exemplifying its influence in the tribulation and patience of
Jesus Christ.

 CHAPTER X.
Owen retires to Stadham — Effects of the Restoration — Venner’s insurrection — The fifth
monarchy men — Difference between Owen and Clarendon — The Act of Uniformity — Owen
writes on the Magistrates’ power in Religion — His Primer for children — His Theologoumena—
His Criticisms on Fiat Lux — Cane’s Reply — Owen’s Vindication — Difficulty of finding a license
for it — Interview with Lord Clarendon — Invitation to New England — Sufferings of the
Dissenters — Relieved for a time by the plague and fire of London — Owen writes various Tracts —
Preaches more regularly in London — Publishes a Catechism on the Worship and Discipline of the
Church — Answered by Camfield — Discussions between Baxter and Owen, respecting a union of
Presbyterians and Independents — Failure of the attempt — Owen receives a Legacy — Publishes
on Indwelling Sin — On the 130th Psalm — The first volume of his Exposition of the Hebrews —
Review of the whole work.
After the Doctor was deprived of the Deanery of Christ Church, he retired
to Stadham, the place of his birth, where he had purchased an estate, and
where he had collected a small congregation during his residence in
Oxford. He continued to preach to this society for some time, and was
resorted to by many from Oxford, to whom perhaps he had formerly been
useful, and who now followed him to be comforted and instructed by his
labours. The congregation, however, was in a short time broken up by the
Oxford Militia, and the persecution became so violent that the Doctor had
468
to move from place to place for security.
The Restoration of Charles II brought many woes to Britain. He was
totally destitute of religion, without sincerity, and indifferent to
everything but pleasure and sensual gratification. The despotic spirit of
the Stuarts had suffered no depression by their misfortunes and
sufferings.
288
He returned like a conqueror rather than an exile, to take possession of a
hereditary throne and an unlimited sceptre, instead of accepting the
conditional and defined sovereignty of a free and independent people.
The mania of royalty was now as wild as the phrensy of republicanism
had ever been; and under its excitement the people forgot that they had
rights to maintain and conditions to prescribe, as well as gifts to bestow.
What was thus generously surrendered, Charles had neither the honour
nor the generosity to respect. He made a large importation of French
politics, licentiousness, and irreligion; so that in a very short time the
appearance of the court, and the aspect of the country were entirely
changed. The decidedly religious characters of the former period no
doubt held fast their integrity; but the lukewarm, or those who had only
adopted the profession of the day, either laid it quietly aside or turned out
bitter enemies to their former friends. But just as all was not genuine
religion which had assumed its appearance during the Commonwealth,
so more of it remained afterwards than might have been supposed from
the open profaneness which abounded. A numerous body of enlightened
and conscientious men patiently endured the trial of cruel mockings, and
bonds and imprisonments, and many of them the loss of all things for
Christ’s sake. They steadily resisted the torrent of infidelity and
corruption, and ultimately obtained an important triumph.
Shortly after the Restoration, the insurrection of Venner and the Fifth
469
monarchy men brought much reproach on the Dissenters, and
afforded the court a favourable and wished-for opportunity to interfere
with their privileges.
289
Baptists and Quakers, as well as the monarchy men, were forbidden to
assemble publicly; and Independents, though not named, were
considered as involved in the same condemnation. The respective bodies
of Dissenters published declarations expressing their detestation of the
principles and practices of these wild fanatics. The document issued by
470
the Independents, disowns the personal reign of Jesus on the earth, as
dishonourable to him, and prejudicial to his church; and it abhors the
propagation of this or any other principle by force or blood. It refers to
the Savoy Declaration for the sentiments of Independents respecting civil
magistracy, and the obligation to obey it. And it declares that they do not
cease to pray for all sorts of blessings to the king and his government.
This paper is signed by twenty-five of their ministers, among whom the
name of Owen does not occur. It is probable that he was in the country
when the insurrection took place, and might not have an opportunity of
being present at the meeting in which the declaration was drawn up. His
471
sentiments, however, were quite in unison with it.
In justice to the Fifth Monarchy men, it ought to be stated that all the
patrons of this sentiment cannot be considered friendly to the measures
of Venner, Harrison, and the other fierce republicans and visionaries by
whom this uproar had been made. The religious sentiment is as old as
some of the Fathers of the church. It is only a modification of the doctrine
of the MILLENNIUM, which has been held by highly respectable individuals
of various communions both before and since the Commonwealth. The
learned and celebrated Joseph Mede, and his contemporary Dr. Henry
More, held sentiments nearly allied to those of the persons who
contended for the personal reign of Jesus on earth.
290
I have now before me a folio volume by Nathaniel Homes, a fifth
monarchy man: “The Resurrection revealed, or the dawning of the day-
star,” etc. It is a book full of curious learning, in which the sentiments of
Mede are advocated — but without any of that grossness and carnality
which are supposed to have distinguished this class of persons. Others
also deserved respect both for learning and piety. It is only when religious
sentiment induces those practices which are incompatible with public
peace or good morals, that the restraints of authority are called for.
Among the German Anabaptists, and English Fanatics — whose
sentiments were the same on various points— there were probably many
whose private characters, another day, would have been very different
from that which the judgment of man has pronounced, and which the
proceedings of the general body would seem to warrant.
Wood expresses his astonishment that Owen was not excepted from the
472
benefit of the Act of Oblivion passed after the king’s return. But this I
suppose was never contemplated. The royal party knew too well the
character and conduct of the Doctor, to involve themselves unnecessarily
in the odium of such a measure. The same writer tells us that Sir Edward
Hyde, afterwards Lord Clarendon, then Chancellor, treated Owen with
great kindness and respect, and wished him, if he would not conform, to
employ his time in writing against the Roman Catholics, and not to
disturb the public peace by keeping conventicles. Owen promised to do
this. But afterwards, being found preaching to thirty or forty persons at
Stadham, he was complained of to the Chancellor.
291
When Owen understood this, he wrote to Dr. Barlow, whom he had
obliged in the same manner in Cromwell’s time, to endeavour to make his
peace with Hyde. In consequence of which, Barlow went from Oxford to
Cornbury for the purpose. But the Chancellor told him that Dr. Owen was
a perfidious (treacherous) person who had violated his engagements, and
therefore he would let him suffer the penalty of the laws which he had
 473
broken.
Independent of any positive evidence, we might be fully assured from
Owen’s well-known principles, that he would never have promised to
abstain from preaching when he had an opportunity. But he meets the
charge directly himself. Wood’s account is borrowed chiefly from Vernon,
in reply to whom the Doctor says,
“There is nothing in substance or circumstance that can lay the least pretence to truth in what he
reports to have happened between the then Lord Chancellor and me. As I have good witness to
prove that the mistake which fell out between us was not occasioned by me, I much question
whether this author was informed of the untruths he reports by Dr. Barlow; or whether he ever
474
gave his consent to use his name publicly to countenance such a defamatory libel.”
As Owen held no living in the Church, he was not involved in the
consequences of the Act of Uniformity. All that he and those with whom
he acted sought, was toleration or liberty of conscience. A comprehension
within the pale of the establishment was incompatible with their
principles, and unsuited to their wishes. It does not fall within the design
of this work to note the discussions between the Court and the
Presbyterians, about the Act of Uniformity, as the subject of these
memoirs had no connexion with them.
292
But the discussions themselves, and the treatment which followed,
suggest some important reflections. They show the folly of attempting to
reconcile the principles and practice of the kingdom of Christ, with those
of a worldly government. The Court was determined to yield nothing; the
Non-conformists were disposed to yield everything they could in good
conscience, in order to retain the patronage of the state. Expediency
rather than Scripture was the rule by which both parties proceeded. They
did not perceive, or were unwilling to acknowledge, that the church is a
society altogether different in its principles and constitution from the
state; and therefore it ought to be independent of its interference. The
Ministers wished too much to get the earth to help the woman, while the
court was determined to make the woman help the earth. Hence the
disputes between them were interminable; for the further they
proceeded, the more widely they diverged.
The Bartholomew ejection was a strong measure, but naturally expected
from the spirit of the court. Except for the individual suffering which it
occasioned, it should not be deplored. The Church of England was
unworthy of the men whom she cast out. Their ejection taught them
better views of the Christian dispensation. And in the enjoyment of a pure
conscience, and in the liberty of Christ, they possessed a happiness which
the benefices of the church without them could not confer. They
originated many of those societies which have preserved the light of
Evangelical truth in the country, and which would not, in all probability,
have existed without that event. Their conduct was a noble testimony to
the power of religion, to which, as might have been expected, the seal of
Divine approval was attached.
293
Soon after the Doctor had left Oxford, he wrote a paper containing
“Resolutions of certain questions concerning the power of the supreme
Magistrate about religion and the worship of God, with one about tithes.”
Lond. 4to. 1659. It was answered shortly after by a Quaker in a “Winding
sheet for England’s ministry, which has a name to live, but is dead.” The
following year he produced “a Primer for Children.” It was written,
according to Wood, though he confesses he had not seen it, for the
purpose of training up children in Independency; a very heinous crime in
the opinion of some people — as if it were more unlawful to educate
children in Independency than in any other system. Owen was fully
convinced that if children were not trained up in the fear of the Lord,
whatever else they were instructed in, would signify little.
His next work was one of his most learned and laboured performances,
and shows the transitions of which he was capable, from writing Tracts
and Primers, to Latin systems of Theology.
“Theologoumena Pantodapa, etc. Or six Books on the nature, rise, progress, and study of true
Theology. In which also the origin and growth of true and false religious worship, and the more
remarkable declensions and restorations of the Church are traced from their first sources. To
which are added digressions concerning Universal grace — the origin of the sciences — notes of
the Roman Church — the origin of letters — the ancient Hebrew letters — Hebrew Punctuation
— Versions of the Scriptures — Jewish rites, etc. Oxford, 1661, 4to. pp. 534.”
294
It was reprinted at Bremen in 1684, and at Franeker in 1700. It has no
dedication; but there is a long Preface and a Latin Poem at the end of it,
eulogizing the work, and giving a kind of analysis of it, by T. G., whom he
calls “Clarissimus Symmystes,” and whom I suppose to be Thomas
Goodwin. The title page of this work, which I have translated at 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 Critical
History of Religious worship, with some of the discussions of Gale’s court
of the Gentiles.
In the first book, Owen treats Theology in general: the natural theology of
the first man, and the corruption and loss of it by the entrance of sin. In
the second book, he discusses Adamic or Antediluvian Theology. The
third Book treats Noahic or Postdiluvian Theology, and the progress of
Idolatry till the time of Abraham. The fourth Book is on Abrahamic and
Mosaic Theology. In the next book he examines the corruption,
reformation, and abolition of the Mosaic system. The last book treats
Evangelical Theology and the proper method of studying it. The work
reveals a vast extent of reading and a profound acquaintance with the
whole compass of profane and sacred learning. On doctrinal subjects, it
contains the same sentiments as his English works; in the digressions are
some curious speculative discussions; his notes of the Roman Church
accurately mark her character and corruption; and his views of the study
of Theology deserve the attention of every student. What his sentiments
were at this time, respecting the constitution of the New Testament
Church, the learned reader will perceive from the following paragraph:
295
“Christ nowhere taught that one family, city, town, district, nation, people, or kingdom, made
one Church. But the grand principle of the constitution of every Gospel Church is the voluntary
obedience of his faithful disciples. Resting on his sole authority, they form themselves into a
society, such as he himself has prescribed. For he expressly taught, as we have already
mentioned, that all believers in every part of the earth should form societies of this kind; in
which they should attend to that Gospel worship which is of his own appointment; exercise the
discipline instituted by himself; carefully promote the preservation and comfort of the whole
church, together with the increase of believers; submit to those who preside over them by his
appointment, according to the rules laid down in his word; help one another by all the duties of
their sacred fellowship, such as counsels, prayers, and alms; declare the truth in the most public
manner; diffuse the sweet odour of the Gospel; and finally convince and judge the world by the
sanctity of their lives, by their attention to good works, and by the most careful observance of
peace and love among themselves. Adhering to this rule, believers formerly erected societies of
this description in every part of the world; and thus they ought to be constituted to the end of
475
time.”
This work is very incorrectly printed. In an advertisement to three pages
of Errata at the end, the Doctor blames the printer for great carelessness;
at the same time he mentions that he was absent during the printing of it,
“a capite ad calcem.” There are mistakes or blunders on almost every
page; on this account, the continental Editions are preferable to the
author’s own, as they are free from the numerous errors which deform it.
296
Unless my memory misleads me, a minister in Scotland is said to have
prepared a translation of this work some time ago. But unless a good deal
of freedom was used with the original, I question whether it would be a
readable book in English; and the information which it contains has long
been superseded by numerous valuable works in every department of
Theology of which it treats.
Following the advice of Lord Clarendon, his next publication was on the
Popish controversy. In 1661, a 12mo. volume appeared, entitled “Fiat Lux,
or a general conduct to a right understanding between Papist and
Protestant, Presbyterian and Independent, by J. V. C. a friend to men of
all religions.” The author of this work was John Vincent Cane, a
Franciscan Friar, who wrote several things before on the Catholic
controversy. Fiat Lux contains a great display of moderation, and a large
portion of craft. It proposes to show that there is no reason for men
quarrelling about religion; — that everything is so obscure, no one should
set himself up as a guide to another; — that the various sects of
Protestants have no advantage over one another, and none of them any
advantage over Popery, which is innocent in its principles and
unblameable in its conduct toward them all. The inference to be drawn
from its miscellaneous discussions is that the only remedy for all existing
evils and differences, is returning to the bosom of an infallible church.
Rome alone is Terra firma, and all is sea beside.
297
The state of the country rendered any production of this nature, however
feeble and contemptible in itself, an object of attention. The well-known
leanings of the court, the incessant vigilance and craft of the emissaries of
Popery, and the tendency of human nature to embrace its most
unscriptural and dangerous sentiments, justified an immediate reply to
this pretended friend of light. It was put into Owen’s hands by a person of
honour (probably Clarendon), with a request that he answer it.
Accordingly in 1662, appeared “Criticisms on Fiat Lux by a Protestant,
12mo. pp. 440.” In an address to the reader, he says, “the author of Fiat
seems at first to be a Naphtali giving goodly words; but though the voice
we hear is sometimes that of Jacob, the hands are the hands of Esau.” He
extracts out of the mass of confusion of which it is composed, all the
leading principles or statements, and replies to them with great spirit and
pertinency. He does not pretend to defend the particular sentiments of
any party, but joins issue on the grand principles of Protestantism. It
contains a larger portion of irony than is usually found in the Doctor’s
writings, which renders it tolerably pleasant to read (though on a now
stale, but still important subject).
Cane published a short reply to Owen’s criticisms, in an epistle to the
author. He seemed less anxious to defend his former treatise than to
discover who the critic was, and to excite popular odium against him as
one of the demagogues of the commonwealth. This led Owen to meet him
again in a larger work, with his name prefixed to it.
“A vindication of the Criticisms on Fiat Lux, in which the principles of the Roman Church, as to
Moderation, Unity, and Truth are examined; and sundry important controversies concerning the
Rule of Faith, Papal Supremacy, the Mass, Images, etc. are examined. Lond. 1664, 8vo. pp. 564.”
298
We have already extracted some passages from this work in reply to the
personal charges of the Friar; it is therefore unnecessary to refer to them
again. The work itself is not limited to replying to Cane; it embraces the
substance of the Popish controversy. It is divided into twenty-four
chapters, in each of which he treats some important fact or principle in
dispute. It abounds with learning and strong reasoning, and shows how
much the author was at home on the minutest parts of that widely
extended controversy. He had cultivated every department of theology
with diligence, and had only to bend his mind for a little to any one
subject, in order to make the rich stores of his varied learning bear upon
it with the happiest effect.
For this work, strange as it may appear, the Doctor found it difficult to
procure an imprimatur. The Bishops, who were privately enemies to
Owen’s reputation, and some of them secret friends to Popery, had little
inclination to promote the one, or to assist in injuring the other. They
alleged that he did not give the title of SAINT to the apostles and
evangelists, and that he attempted to prove there was no evidence of
Peter’s having been at Rome! To the first objection the Doctor replied
that the designation of Apostle was more distinguished than that of Saint,
in which all the people of God were included. But to please them, he
yielded to make that addition. He would, however, consent to make no
alteration on the other point, unless they could prove that he was
mistaken; and he would rather that his work never see the light, than
expunge what he had written. Such was the temper of the Episcopal
Inquisition at this time, that in all probability his book would have been
suppressed, had not Sir Edward Nicholas written to the Bishop of London
to license it — he was one of the principal secretaries of state, a man of
unblemished character, and highly esteemed for his public and private
virtues. The work accordingly appeared with the imprimatur of Thos.
476
Greig, domestic chaplain to his Lordship.
299
These works appear to have gained Owen the favour of Lord Clarendon,
who employed Sir Bulstrode Whitelocke, to procure an interview with
him. His Lordship expressed his approval of the service done by the
Doctor’s Anti-popish writings, and intimated that he had more merit than
any English Protestant of the period. At the same time, he offered Owen
preferment in the church if he would conform. Had Owen complied, the
highest honours of the hierarchy would doubtless have been open to him.
However, the Doctor declined for obvious reasons. He was too much an
Independent in every sense to barter his freedom for office, honour, or
wealth. His Lordship expressed his surprise that a person of his learning
would have embraced the novel opinion of Independency. To which the
Doctor replied that he had indeed spent some part of his time in
acquiring an acquaintance with the history of the Church; and he would
engage to prove against any Bishop that his Lordship would appoint to
meet him, that the Independent form of Church Government prevailed
for several hundred years after Christ. They also conversed on the subject
of religious toleration. The Chancellor asked Owen what he would
require. He answered, “Liberty to those who agreed in doctrine with the
Church of England.” This was all, probably, which he then thought it
prudent or necessary to mention — with the exception of the Papists,
there were very few in the country who held doctrines different from
those of the Church of England.
300
How Clarendon understood or repeated this remark is uncertain; but it
seems to have occasioned a report that the Doctor was unfriendly to the
toleration of any but those who held the doctrinal sentiments of the
Church. This, however, is so contrary to his avowed sentiments and
general conduct, as to require no refutation. He was perhaps unfriendly
to the toleration of Catholics, for reasons in which many of the warmest
friends of liberty are united with him. Popery has been the invariable and
universal enemy of civil and religious freedom, and the strongest
supporter of oppression and arbitrary power. It is a deadly night-shade,
under whose baneful influence all the moral and social virtues of man are
either stunted in their growth, or entirely destroyed. The very love of
liberty must induce aversion to the encouragement of a sect which, if
consistent, must wage eternal war with freedom. And it can only flourish
by prostrating the understanding, enslaving the conscience, and
extinguishing the moral feelings of men.
In the end of the year 1663, the Doctor received an invitation from the
first Congregational Church of Boston, in New England, of which Mr.
Cotton, and afterwards Mr. John Norton, had been Pastor. The latter
having died in the month of April preceding, the church desired to fill his
place with Dr. Owen. Their application was 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 of
usefulness it presented, and from the similarity of their sentiments and
circumstances to his own: —
301
“Reverend Sir,
It has pleased the Most High God, possessor of heaven and earth, who gives no account of his
matters, to take to himself, that pious and eminent minister of the gospel, Mr. John Norton, late
teacher of the Church of Christ in Boston, whose praise is in all the Churches. The suitable and
happy repair of this breach is of great concern, not only to that Church, but to the whole country.
Now, although most of us are strangers to you, yet having seen your labours and heard of the
grace and wisdom communicated to you from the Father of lights, we thought fit to write these,
to second the call and invitation of that church to yourself, to come over and help us. We assure
you it will be very acceptable to this Court, and we hope to the whole country, if the Lord directs
your way here, and makes your journey prosperous to us. We confess the condition of this
wilderness presents little that is attractive as to outward things; nor are we unmindful that the
undertaking is great, and that many trials accompany it. The persons who call you are unworthy
sinful men, of much infirmity, and may possibly fall short of your expectation (considering the
long and liberal day of grace afforded us). Yet, as Abraham and Moses, being called of God, by
faith forsook their country and its pleasures and followed the Lord — the one not knowing where
he went, the other to suffer affliction with, and bear the manners of, the people of God in the
wilderness; and God was with them and honoured them — so we desire that the Lord would
clarify your call, and give you his presence. You may please to consider those who give you this
call as your brethren and companions in tribulation. We are in this wilderness for the faith and
testimony of Jesus, and we yet enjoy, through the distinguishing favour of God, the pleasant
things of Zion in peace and liberty.
302
And while the Lord sees fit to entrust us with this mercy, we hope no due care will be found
lacking in the Government established here, to encourage and cherish the churches of Christ,
and the Lord’s faithful labourers in his vineyard. Thus praying to the God of the spirits of all
 flesh, to set a man over this congregation of the Lord; that He may go in and out before them,
and make your call clear, and the voyage successful to us; and that if the Lord grants us such a
favour, you may come to us in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. With our very
kind love and respect,
We remain, your very loving friends,
John Endicott,
in the name, and by appointment of the General Cort,
477
sitting at Boston, in New England, the 20th October, 1663.”
I am unable to say what answer the Doctor returned immediately to this
affectionate invitation. It would seem from a letter of Captain Gookins,
one of the Assistant Governors of Massachusetts, dated July 1666, that
after some time, he had been inclined to comply with the request; but
certain circumstances deterred him. He says,
303
“Dr. Owen, and some choice ones who intended to come with me, are diverted. And that is not
from hopes of better times in England, but from fears of worse in America — which some new
counsels gave them occasion for — so that in all probability a new cloud is gathering, and a
478
storm is preparing for us.”
479

It is said he was stopped by orders from Court, after some of his property
was actually embarked. The sufferings to which conscientious Dissenters
were exposed, were increasing in severity every day. It was not deemed
sufficient to drive them out of the church; it was thought necessary to
make them miserable afterwards. Dr. Owen had his own share of these
sufferings. He preached at Stadham as long as he was able, and then
removed to London where he lived mostly in private, and preached as
often as he conveniently could. The Act of 1664, for suppressing
Conventicles, was designed (according to Rapin) to drive the Non-
conformists to despair, or to commit real crimes against the state. Many
were led by it to adopt a species of conformity to which Independents and
Baptists objected as unscriptural — as countenancing the measures of
Government, and approving of a persecuting church. To evade the laws
and enjoy the privilege of worshipping God, many and ingenious
measures were resorted to. However, the Oxford Act (or Five Mile Act)
was intended to cut off all these resources. All who refused to swear to
passive obedience in the most absolute sense, were prohibited from
coming within five miles of any corporated town or borough. The iniquity
of the Act was all the greater, because it was passed during the plague of
London, where many of the Non-conformist ministers had courageously
ventured to preach to the living, and administer consolation to the dying.
304
The plague was followed by the terrible fire of London, in which the
greater part of the city was destroyed, and most of the Churches laid in
ruins. This disastrous event was placed, perhaps unjustly, to the charge of
the Papists, and it raised a terrible storm against them — while it
occasioned a partial mitigation of the laws against the Dissenters.
Temporary places of worship, called tabernacles, were fitted up, in which
many of the Non-conformists preached to crowded and attentive
audiences. Owen, Goodwin, Nye, Griffiths, Brooks, Caryl, Barker, and
other Independents, fitted up rooms or other places for public service;
and for a short time, they were permitted to meet unmolested. Baxter
says Owen had kept off before this — as if he had been more ashamed or
afraid of suffering than his brethren. But I apprehend this is only one of
480
the many instances of Baxter’s private feeling towards Owen.
The fall of Lord Clarendon in the following year, who had been the chief
adviser of the unconstitutional and rigorous measures pursued by the
Court, together with the temporary disgrace of Archbishop Sheldon, and
Bishop Morley, who were guilty actors in the same proceedings,
contributed to relax the exertions made to ruin the Dissenters. Clarendon
is said to have remarked that his affairs never prospered after the Oxford
Act. The king began, or pretended, to see the selfish and unjust policy of
some of the late proceedings, and professed a willingness to give relief to
his persecuted subjects.
305
About this time (I cannot ascertain the exact dates of all of them), Dr.
Owen wrote several tracts which tended to enlighten the public mind, and
to soften the hearts of adversaries: — “An Account of the Grounds and
Reasons on which the Protestant Dissenters desire their liberty.” — “A
Letter concerning the present Excommunications.” — “The present
Distresses on Non-conformists examined.” These are printed in the folio
volume of his sermons and tracts; but without dates. In 1667, he
published “Indulgence and Toleration Considered, in a Letter to a person
of honour,” 4to. pp. 31. And “A Peace Offering, in an Apology and humble
plea for Indulgence and Liberty of Conscience.” 4to. pp. 37. The general
design of all these tracts is,
— to promote peaceable obedience to the civil enactments of
Government;
— to show the injustice and impolicy of subjecting conscientious and
useful men to suffering on account of their religious sentiments;
— to expose the unconstitutional nature of the proceedings against them,
by informers and secret emissaries;
— to give a view of the nature and benefits of toleration in former ages,
and in other places;
— to vindicate it from various charges, and
— to point out the folly of attempting to settle the peace of the country on
the basis of religious uniformity.
They contain some of those enlightened principles and reasonings on the
subject of religious liberty, which are to be found in his former writings;
and notice what the event has proven to be true: that there is no nation
where religious liberty would be more conducive to tranquillity, trade,
and wealth, than England. All the tracts were anonymous, for very
obvious reasons.
306
About this time he appears to have been preaching pretty regularly to a
congregation of his own forming. It consisted, among other persons, of
many officers of the army, with whom he had formerly been connected.
He also set up a lecture to which many resorted — persons of quality, and
eminent citizens; some account will afterwards be given of several of
them. Any ease which was enjoyed, however, was but of a very temporary
nature. No legal protection had been obtained, and the most valuable
rights and privileges of the community were at the mercy of interested
informers, and of ignorant and intolerant magistrates. The Doctor
himself made a very narrow escape from being apprehended when on a
visit to his old friends in the neighbourhood of Oxford. He endeavoured
to keep as private as possible; but he was observed, and information was
given about the house in which he lodged. Some troopers came and
knocked at the door for admittance. On the landlady opening it, and
demanding what they wanted, they told her they sought Dr. Owen. She
told them he was not there, supposing he had gone off early in the
morning, as he intended — upon which, instead of examining the house,
they rode off. The Doctor, learning what had taken place, immediately got
481
his horse and returned to London. How dreadful the state of the
country must have been, when such a man was under the necessity of
sculking and moving from place to place for security!
307
In 1667, he published “A Brief Instruction in the Worship of God, and
Discipline of the Churches of the New Testament, by way of Question and
Answer.” 12mo. pp. 228. It has neither his name nor that of the printer,
nor the place of printing, — evidences of the danger of being known as the
author or publisher of a work on such a subject, at that time. The style,
however, betrays the writer in every page. It contains only fifty-three
questions, the answers to which (with their explications) are of course
abundantly long, and are frequently divided into several sections. His
sentiments as an Independent, as might be expected, are plainly state —
but more in the way of practical explanation, than of controversy or
theoretical defence. I think it right to quote his answers to several
questions, because the work is now scarcely known, and because they
state very explicitly the Doctor’s views on some disputed points.
“Quest. 19. What is an instituted Church of the gospel?
Ans. — A society of persons, called out of the world, or their natural worldly state, by the
administration of the word and Spirit to the obedience of the faith, or the knowledge and
worship of God in Christ, joined together in a holy bond, or by special agreement, for the
exercise of the communion of saints in the due observation of all the ordinances of the Gospel.
“Quest. 23. Who are the ordinary officers or ministers of Christ in the Church, always to be
continued therein?
Ans. — Those whom the Scripture calls Pastors and Teachers, Bishops, Elders, and Guides.
Explication By all these names, and sundry others, the same sort, order, and degree of persons is
intended. Nor is any one of these names applied or accommodated to anyone unless all the rest
are also applied in like manner; so that he who is a Pastor or Teacher, is also a Bishop or
Overseer, a Presbyter or Elder, a Guide or Ruler, a Minister or servant of the Church for the
Lord’s sake.
308
“Quest. 30. Are there any differences in the office, or offices of the Guides, Rulers, Elders, or
Ministers of the Church?
Ans. — The office of those who are Teachers, is one and the same among them all; but where
there are many in the same Church, it is the will of Christ that they should be particularly
assigned to such special work in the discharge of their office-power, as their gifts received from
him particularly fit them for, and the necessities of the Church require.
Explication. — They are all alike Elders, alike Bishops, alike Guides, have the one office in
common among them, and each one the whole entire to himself.
“Quest. 40. How often is the Ordinance of the Lord’s Supper to be administered?
Ans. — -Every first day of the week, or at least as often as opportunity and convenience may be
 obtained, 1Cor 11.26; Act 20.7.
“Quest 52. In what does the duty of any Church of Christ consist towards other Churches?
Ans. — 1. In walking circumspectly, so as to give them no offence. 2. In prayer for their peace
and prosperity. 3. In communicating supplies to their wants according to ability. 4. In receiving
with love and readiness the members of them into fellowship, as there is occasion. 5. In desiring
and making use of their counsel and advice in such cases of doubt and difficulty as may arise
among them. 6. In joining with them to express their communion in the same doctrine of faith.”
It surely cannot be matter of doubt, which denomination of Christians the
person belonged to, who could express himself in this manner. The
Catechism altogether contains an excellent view of the constitution,
ordinances, and officers of a Christian Church.
309
And its re-publication might serve to convince some, that the sentiments
of certain modern Independents are not so remote from those of their
more “learned and celebrated” predecessors, as has been ignorantly
alleged.
The publication of this Catechism, Baxter tells us, “was offensive to
many.” This seems to have been the lot of all Independent Catechisms.
Among the rest, it gave great offence to Benjamin Camfield, Rector of
Whitby in Derbyshire, who published an octavo volume of 347 pages in
reply to it. “A serious examination of the Independents’ Catechism, and of
the chief principles of Non-conformity to, and separation from, the
Church of England. 1669.” By this gentleman’s account, “the book
examined is the sink of all Non-conforming and separating principles
from the Protestant religion established in the kingdom!” He is
exceedingly angry with the Catechist throughout. He declares he neither
knows nor cares to know him, and labours hard to convict him of error or
inconsistency in maintaining the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures! But
the body of the Doctor’s work remained untouched. Nothing is more
amusing than to see a high churchman in a rage, when we know he can
only storm and revile, not having the power to banish or imprison.
The publication of the Catechism led Mr. Baxter to propose to Dr. Owen a
union between the Presbyterians and the Independents. That singular
man was forever contriving schemes of union, but very seldom employed
the means which were most likely to accomplish them. He seems
invariably to have forgotten that union will never be effected by disputing
for it, and that chiding (which he called ‘plain dealing’) was very unlikely
to bring it about.
310
His present attempt was no more successful than many others.
“I told Dr. Owen,” he says, “that I must deal freely with him, and that when I thought of what he
had done formerly, I was much afraid, lest one who had been so great a breaker, would not be
made an instrument in healing.”
This was certainly no great encouragement.
“But in other respects, I thought him the fittest person in England for the work; partly because
he could understand it; and partly because his experience of the temperament of men, and of the
mischiefs of dividing principles and practices had been so very great, that if experience were to
make any man wise and fit for a healing work, it would be him.”
This must have been vastly flattering to the Doctor.
“And that a Catechism for Independency, which he had recently written, was my chief motive —
because there he had given up two of the worst principles of popularity” — acknowledging —
“that the people do not have the power of the Keys, and they do not give this power to the
pastor.”
He does not inform us that Owen admitted he had given up anything, or
retracted any sentiment for which he had formerly contended. Nor had
Owen in fact done so. Owen maintains, in the Catechism,
“That whatever the Pastors do in the Church according to rule, they do it not in the name or by
authority of the church, by which their power is derived to them; nor only as members of the
church, by their own consent; but they do it in the name and authority of Jesus Christ, from
whom, by virtue of his law and ordinance, their ministerial office or power is received.”
311
This is a sentiment, which I believe Owen held from the beginning, to the
end of his career. Stripped of the superfluous language in which his ideas
are all clothed, it amounts merely to what I apprehend all Independents
hold: that the Pastor of a church in leading it to obey the laws of Christ,
does not act from a power communicated by the church; but by virtue of a
special appointment of Christ, whose authority is interposed.
Mr. Baxter soon drew up an “abundance of theses, as the matter of
common concord,” and left them with Owen, who objected to their
number. On this he produced another draft of the things in which
Presbyterians and Independents were agreed, and to which he requested
the Doctor’s exceptions. Owen wrote him at some length, pointing out
several things which would require reconsideration — and at the same
time expressing his cordial approval of the object and of the general plan
proposed. This produced a long letter from Baxter, in reply to his doubts
and exceptions. He still insinuates suspicions of Owen’s sincerity, which
must have rendered the correspondence very unpleasant to him. This,
and the difficulty of accomplishing the object, perhaps together with
doubts of the good likely to result from its attainment (as circumstances
then stood), seem to have discouraged the Doctor. After more than a
year’s delay, Baxter says Owen returned the papers with these words: “I
am still a well-wisher to these mathematics.” A reply sufficiently brief,
expressive of his general approval of the scheme, but of his doubts about
the calculating process of his ingenious correspondent. “This was the
result,” says Baxter, “of my third attempt for union with the
482
Independents.”
312
Mr. Baxter’s first attempt at union with the Independents, seems to have
been made with Mr. Philip Nye about 1655. We have a full account of the
483
correspondence between them in his Life. The second, I suppose, was
484
made with Mr. George Griffith, some time after the former. Neither of
those individuals could enter into Baxter’s proposals. It would be very
unfair, however, to attach the blame of being hostile to union, to Owen,
Nye, or Griffith, or to the Independents at large, just because they could
not go into these measures. Mr. Baxter’s schemes often looked fair and
plausible on paper; but their practicability in the present state of human
nature is a very different thing. The Independents were the smaller body,
and were naturally afraid of being borne down by numbers, if they
formed a union by conceding any of their leading principles. They
attached less importance to external uniformity than Baxter and most of
his brethren did. Whatever evils occasionally result from disunion, is
likely to cure them only by inflicting a greater evil in their place. This was
a scheme which would comprehend in one body Episcopalians and
Baptists, Presbyterians and Independents. The sentiments of the
Independents on the subject of union (expressed in the two last articles of
the Savoy Declaration), embrace everything for which it is of importance
to contend. And I believe they are the sentiments held and acted on by
that body to this day.
“Those reforming Churches which consist of persons sound in the faith, and of conduct that
becomes the Gospel, should not refuse the communion of each other, so far it as it may be
consistent with their own principles respectively, even though they do not walk in all things
according to the same rules of church order. Churches gathered and walking according to the
mind of Christ, judging other churches to be true churches, though less pure, may receive into
occasional communion with them, such members of those churches as are credibly testified to
be godly, and to live without offence.”
313
What these eminent persons could not effect by disputation, was brought
about shortly after their death in 1696. That was when the Presbyterian
and Independent churches in London and the environs, united on certain
485
general principles. This illustrates the justness of a remark of Owen’s,
in a Sermon preached on the occasion of two Churches uniting.
“I would be very sorry that any man living would outdo me in desires that all who fear God
throughout the world, especially in these nations, were of one way, as well as of one heart. I
know I desire it sincerely. But I truly believe that when God accomplishes it, it will be the effect
of love, not the cause of love. It will proceed from love, before it brings forth love. There is not a
greater vanity in the world, than to drive men into a particular profession, and then suppose that
love will be the necessary consequence of it — to think that if they can but drive men into such
and such practices by sharp rebukes, by cutting and bitter expressions, then love will certainly
486
ensue.”
It is very probable that this language alludes to the failure of this very
attempt between Baxter and himself; and it seems to explain the true
cause of it. Baxter also refers to these failures in his Cure of Church
Divisions, published in 1670. In that text, he fights the Established
Church with the one hand, and the Independents with the other. He
confesses that for twenty years he had been writing, preaching, and
praying for the Churches’ peace, but to no purpose.
314
“I have but made a wedge of my bare hand,” he says, “by putting it into the cleft; and both sides
closing upon it to my pain, I have turned both parties — which I endeavoured to part in the fray
487
— against myself. While each side had but one adversary, I had two.”
Bagshaw replied to the “Cure;” and “Dr. Owen,” Baxter says, “spoke very
bitterly against it in private, and divulged his dissent from my proposals
of concord, though he never said more to myself than was before
488
expressed.” Baxter, though a most devoted servant of Christ, put too
much keenness of temper into all his peaceable proposals; and this, no
doubt, was one of the main reasons for their frequent failure. In
promoting love — while he always acted from pure and upright motives —
he did not sufficiently study the principal means of accomplishing it:
“Ut ameris amabilis esto.” [To be loved, be lovable.]
In 1668, Own succeeded to a legacy of five hundred pounds by the death
of Martyn Owen, a rich Brewer in London, and a relation of the Doctor’s.
489
This, together with his landed property and the proceeds of his
numerous writings, enabled him to live, while enjoying probably little
emolument from his labours in the Gospel. As these must have been very
irregular and frequently interrupted, more time was left for private
application, which he appears to have employed with the most
conscientious diligence. Some of his most important publications which
had been long in preparation, made their appearance during this year.
The remainder of this chapter will be devoted and to an account of them.
315
The first of these is, “The nature, power, deceit, and prevalency of the
remainders of Indwelling-sin in believers, etc.” 8vo. This work is the
substance of a series of Sermons (as most of his practical writings were).
The text is Rom. 7.21. It assumes the innate and universal nature of
human depravity, and confines itself entirely to the experience believers
have of the conflict between sin and grace, to which they are perpetually
subject. It reveals a deep acquaintance with the malignity of sin, and the
deceitfulness and desperate wickedness of the human heart. It is closely
connected in its nature with his treatise on Mortification — to which he
refers the reader, and of which we have already given some account.
There are many fine and important passages in this work, attention to
which would lead to much self-examination, watchfulness, and humility
on the part of believers. The remains of inbred corruption sufficiently
account for the little progress which is too generally made in the
Christian profession — for the fearful misconduct and falls to which men
who have named the name of Christ are frequently left — for the lack of
that solid peace and enjoyment of which believers often complain — and
for that conformity to the world, in its pleasures and vanities, which
distinguish many who would be offended if their Christian character were
called into question. These things were matters of complaint and
lamentation in the days of Owen, and are no less so now. It is true that we
now have a larger portion of public zeal, and bustling activity, in
promoting the interests of religion. This is good; it ought to be
encouraged; and it must be a matter of thankfulness to every sincere
Christian. But the deceitfulness of sin may operate as effectually (though
less obviously) in many whose “zeal for the Lord of Hosts” may appear
very prominent, as it operates in times when such exertions were not
made.
316
It is much easier to donate money to religious societies, to make speeches
at public meetings, to unite in plans of associated usefulness, than it is to
sit in judgment over our hearts, or to correct the aberrations of conduct,
spirit, and disposition. There may be much public professional warmth,
and yet great inward, private decay. In short, there may be a merging of
individual, secret religion, in the bustle and crowd of general profession
and public life. These things are not suggested for the purpose of
discouraging public exertion and association for the diffusion of truth;
but for the purpose of leading men to consider that, in our current
circumstances, genuine Christianity is not necessary to do many things
which are now the objects of general approval; and to consider that such
things, however excellent in themselves, are but poor substitutes for a life
of holy obedience, and converse with ourselves and with heaven. Those
who engage in these objects would do well to read Owen on Indwelling-
sin.
This same year he published, “A Practical Exposition of the 130th Psalm,
in which the nature of the forgiveness of sin is declared, the truth and
reality of it asserted, and the case of a soul distressed with the guilt of sin,
and relieved by a discovery of forgiveness with God, is discoursed at
large,” 4to. This work largely partakes of both the faults and the
excellencies of its author. It partakes of his prolixity, verbosity, and
diffusion; but it also possesses a large share of his knowledge of God and
of man, and of the Divine ways of working with sinful creatures.
Considering the topics which it embraces, it might have been one of the
most valuable and useful of his writings — had he limited himself to a
short illustration of the great leading points.
317
But his disposition to weave an entire system into every work, extends his
reasonings and illustrations so much, that the minds of most of his
readers become fatigued and perplexed long before they arrive at the
conclusion. The prevailing disposition of the present age is to reduce
everything to Tracts. This mode of treating Divine subjects suits the
superficiality and indolence of writers, and the trifling habits of readers;
while at the same time, it is attended with very considerable advantages.
In the age of Owen, the opposite tendency prevailed: the writers of that
period seldom knew when to stop. They never supposed they could
exhaust a subject. They were dissatisfied till they had produced a folio or
a quarto, and had said everything that could be said on the point in hand.
This did not require all the labour and genius that some may suppose. In
fact, the bulk of the work was often a saving of labour to them. They
never thought of dressing or revising their thoughts. A whole chapter
might often have been condensed into a paragraph, and have retained all
its sentiment and a greater portion of spirit. Without meaning to detract
from the merits of Dr. Owen, I am convinced that it would have been
much more difficult for him to abridge than to expand. And I am
convinced that he would have been more exhausted by the attempt to
reconsider and condense his reasonings, and to polish his style, than by
the first production of any of his works.
A judicious Christian who has much leisure and some taste for
Theological reading, will derive benefit from such a treatise as this one
the 130th Psalm. But it may be of importance to note that there are some
evils which the very extent and mode of treating the subject are calculated
to produce on others. As the points which it treats embrace the leading
subjects of salvation, an inquirer may be impressed with the feeling that
they are involved in great obscurity, when they require so extended an
explanation; — he may be led to doubt whether he will ever arrive at a
satisfactory knowledge of them.
318
We consider this a very hurtful mistake, which too many of the older
works of Divinity have tended to promote, and in no small degree. They
are unfavourable, we conceive, to those clear and simple views of
salvation which the Bible itself contains, and which it ought to be the
great object of writing and preaching to point out. In this view, we have
long thought the words of our Christian bard to be as theologically and
practically just, as they are poetically beautiful:
O how unlike the complex works of man,
Heaven’s easy, artless, unencumber’d plan *
No meretricious graces to beguile,
No clustering ornaments to clog the pile;
From ostentation as from weakness free.
It stands like the cerulean arch we see.
Majestic in its own simplicity.
Inscrib’d above the portal, from afar
Conspicuous as the brightness of a star,
Legible only by the light they give.
Stand — the soul quick’ning words — “Believe and live!”
— COWPER.
We apprehend that a work which describes a minute and extensive
process of God’s manner of dealing with a sinner, or of keeping a believer
in the truth, is likely to operate injuriously upon both sinners and
believers. On the former, it is in danger of producing the belief that
conversion is a work which the sinner has to effect, either in the way of
beginning it, or of carrying it on. The author may perhaps guard against
this abuse of his performance. But while he describes a lengthened train
of fears that must be entertained — of convictions that must be felt — of
difficulties that must be subdued — of means that must be used — of
duties that must be performed — there are a thousand chances that a
partially enlightened mind will suppose that all these must be done, or
gone through, in order to find repose.
319
And so it will be ready either to sink into despair from their magnitude,
or else take comfort from brooding over its own feelings and duties —
instead of looking for enjoyment from an Almighty Saviour, and a
finished redemption. Such an individual, and even one who has obtained
peace through faith in the blood of Christ, will be in danger of being
exceedingly discouraged at not finding in himself those feelings or marks
which are attributed to the children of God. And if his experience does
not correspond with the description given, he may be ready to conclude
that something must be materially wrong. A person of cultivated talents
who has been in the habit of paying close attention to the workings of his
own mind, may describe all his own feelings at great length, and with
much accuracy — and these may perhaps be tolerably suited to
individuals of the same description, placed in similar circumstances. But
if this is made the rule of determining God’s method of dealing with
others, it would be far from just, or generally applicable.
We have no doubt that such books as Doddridge’s Rise and Progress,
Alleine’s Alarm, Baxter’s Call, and Owen’s 130th Psalm, have been
eminently useful to many. They have roused attention, and produced
conviction in multitudes. But we put it to any enlightened Christian,
whether the attempt to follow all the directions in these books, and the
application of all the principles they record, to the characters and
experience of men in general — whether that would not have the most
injurious consequences. God’s methods of “convincing of sin, of
righteousness, and of judgment,” are exceedingly diversified.
320
There is a disposition in men to make their personal and individual
experience the rule and the test of that of others. The revelation of mercy
is beautifully simple and plain. Yet, the process by which we may have
arrived at the understanding of it, may have been very circuitous and
complicated. Instead of directing the attention of men to the revelation
itself, in the full blaze of its splendour, and the unadorned simplicity of its
statements — inviting them to follow the windings of our path while
tracing it out, and the harassing perplexities of our minds while seeking
for rest — there can be little doubt that we would injure rather than
benefit. Christians have too generally fallen into the mistake of
recommending theological treatises to inquirers, and the experience of
eminent individuals, instead of pointing them to the Cross of Christ
itself, or directing them to the record of inspiration. Much good has
certainly been done by the former method. But it can scarcely remain
doubtful whether equal good, without any portion of evil, might not have
been done by the simpler method of the apostles.
We can make great allowance for enlargement on doctrinal or exegetical
theology; but conciseness is of vast importance in an experiential or
practical treatise, such as the one on the 130th Psalm. To offer any
analysis of a book which scarcely allows for it, and which is so generally
known, would be rendering no service to the reader. Its praise, the writer
of that memoir says, has been in all the churches; and to those who
exercise the patience which a careful perusal of it requires, and whose
“senses are exercised to discern between good and evil” — perusing it will
be rewarded with profit. In all the language which occurs in it, it would be
wrong for us to profess what we do not feel, which is entire acquiescence.
321
At the same time, our difference is not so much about the substance of
the sentiments, as about the mode of communicating them, and some of
the expressions employed. We cannot, for instance, see the propriety of
the “distinction between faith and spiritual sense,” for which the Doctor
contends. Faith is opposed to sense, just as it is opposed to sight and
hearing. And it is only in opposition to them that the apostle says, “We
walk by faith, not by sight.” There can be no spiritual exercise or
enjoyment, except through the medium of faith. And the stronger faith is,
the higher our enjoyment of spiritual blessings will rise. We indeed
question whether the Doctor’s views on the subject of faith are always
consistent with themselves. He sometimes speaks very simply about it,
and at other times more mysteriously. This was probably occasioned by
his propensity to enlarge and to refine — where, in many cases, a simpler
adherence to the written record, and to the dictates of a common
understanding, would have been at once a shorter and more effectual
method.
In this important and busy year, the also appeared the first volume of his
great and long projected work on the Epistle to the Hebrews. As this is
the most valuable as well as the most extensive of all his writings, it will
merit (as well as require) particular notice here. It is designated,
“An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, — in which the original text is opened and
clarified, ancient and modern translations are compared and examined — the design of the
apostle with his reasonings, arguments and testimonies is unfolded, — the faith, customs,
sacrifices, and other usages of the Judaical Church, are opened and declared, — the true sense of
the text is vindicated from the twistings of it by Socinians and others, — and lastly, practical
observations are deduced and improved. With preliminary Exercitations:” folio.
322
The second volume appeared in 1674, the third in 1680, and the last
(which he left fit for the press) in 1684, after his death. For the sake of
unity, and to prevent repetitions, we will consider the whole at present.
490

The Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most important and difficult
portions of the New Covenant Scriptures. Its subjects are of particular
interest, and the manner in which they are treated by the inspired author,
renders no ordinary degree of scriptural information and critical acumen
necessary for its interpretation. It is devoted to the illustration, not of the
elements or first principles of Christianity, but of its higher departments
— what the apostle calls “the perfection” of the Christian system. The
proofs which it adduces from the Old Testament,
— of the Supreme Divinity of the Son of God;
— of his infinite superiority as a Prophet or Lawgiver to Moses;
— as a Priest to Aaron and all his successors;
— the views which it affords of the mystical design of the ancient
dispensation;
— of the nature and services of the earthly Tabernacle;
— its reasonings respecting the Sacrifice of Christ;
— his Mediation in heaven; and
— and the superior privileges of New Testament believers;
exhibit the depth of his knowledge in the mystery of Christ. These are
calculated to exercise the minds of the most intelligent Christians, and
are eminently fitted to enlarge our conceptions of the grandeur of that
heavenly economy which was established by the blood and perpetuated
by the ministry of Jesus in the sanctuary of God. An intimate
acquaintance with it will do more to establish the faith and comfort the
mind of an enquirer, than all that has been written on Divine truth since
the days of the apostles.
323
It must be acknowledged that the interpretation of this epistle is attended
with difficulties of considerable magnitude. It abounds in peculiarities of
style and sentiment; it treats subjects which are little noticed in other
parts of the New Testament; and it contains profound and singular views
of many parts of the Old Testament, and of its services. There is also a
particular closeness in the reasoning, which requires the most fixed
attention in tracing it, to avoid mistakes. While these things have
deterred many from attempting to explain it, they have operated as
inducements to others to endeavour to unfold its beauties and unveil its
obscurities. Thus, though much of it has been misunderstood, few books
of Scripture have had more labour bestowed on them by learned and
ingenious men.
It employed the pens of a number of the ancient writers. Prior to the time
of Owen, many of the foreign Divines, both Catholic and Reformed, had
bestowed much attention on it. In our own country, too, it had not been
neglected. In 1635, David Dickson, a Scotch minister, and the author of
several exegetical works, published at Aberdeen an octavo volume of
explanations of this epistle. William Jones, D.D., is the author of a
commentary on it, along with one on the epistle to Philemon, and on the
second and third epistles of John, which appeared in one volume folio in
1636. Thomas Lushington, D.D., published in 1640, a folio commentary
on the Hebrews. George Downhame, Bishop of Derry, and author of
several other theological works, also published a commentary on it that
year. William Gouge, D.D., a learned Puritan and a member of the
Westminster Assembly, was the author of another which appeared in
1655. And in 1662, another folio exposition of the epistle appeared from
the pen of Mr. George Lawson.
324
All of these elaborate (and some of them valuable) works were prior to
the attempt of Owen, and were doubtless known to him. In his preface, he
speaks of some of them as “composed with good judgment, and to very
good purpose.” Referring to the entire body of preceding commentators
on the epistle, he says:
“Some I found had critically examined many of the words, phrases, and expressions of the
writer. Some compared his quotations with the places in the Old Testament from which they are
taken. Some had endeavoured an analysis of the several discourses of the author, with the
nature and force of the arguments insisted on by him. The labours of some were to apply the
truths contained in the epistle to practice; others have collected the difficulties which they
observed in it, and scanned them with objections and solutions in the Scholastic manner. Others
had a special regard to the passages whose sense is controverted among the several parties who
are at variance in the Christian religion. All, in their way and manner, endeavoured to give light
to the intention of the Holy Ghost, either in particular passages, or in the whole epistle.”
He was encouraged by the help to be derived from all these quarters, for
the interpretation of the epistle. On the other hand, for a time he was
discouraged from the attempt, by the idea that after so much had been
done, any further labour was unnecessary. But after he had perused all
the works he could obtain, he says,
“I found the excellence of the writing to be such; the depth of the mysteries contained in it to be
so great; the compass of the truth asserted, unfolded, and explained to be so extensive, and so
diffused through the whole body of the Christian religion;
325
the usefulness of the things contained in it, to be so important and indispensably necessary; that
I was quickly satisfied that the wisdom, grace, and truth treasured in this sacred storehouse, are
far from being exhausted by the endeavours of all who had gone before us. So far did all these
truths then seem from being perfectly brought to light by them, that I was assured there was
sufficient ground left for a renewed search after rich ore in this mine — not only for the present
generation, but for all those that will succeed, to the consummation of all things.”
The Doctor brought no ordinary qualifications to this important and
interesting work. To eminent piety was now added a mind enriched with
all the various stores of theological learning — matured by years and
experience, and enlarged by the most correct and extensive views of the
whole scheme of Divine revelation. He possessed an understanding that
was naturally acute, and sharpened by constant and extended intercourse
with enlightened and cultivated society; a habit of application and
perseverance of unspeakable importance to such an undertaking; and a
491
copia verborum which supplied an inexhaustible facility to convey his
sentiments on every subject. Even a slight acquaintance with the work,
must show how well these advantages were employed.
The exercises which accompany this work, and which make up the two
first volumes of Wright’s 8vo. edition, are particularly valuable. They
contain a vast treasure of solid learning and laborious research.
326
Independent of the Commentary, they may be of much service to the
elucidation of other parts of the Sacred record:
— they examine and establish the Canonical authority of the Epistle;
— they inquire into its writer, and show him to have been Paul;
— they investigate the time in which it was written, and show it to have
been shortly after Paul’s deliverance from his first imprisonment
— they consider the language in which it was written, and prove it was
Greek.
The citations made from the Old Testament in it are the subject of
particular attention. They are the subjects of extended and accurate
illustration, through the first volume:
— the oneness of the Church;
— the Jewish distribution of the Old Testament, and their oral law and
tradition;
— the Messiah, and the promises of the Old Testament concerning him;
— his appearances under the former dispensation;
— the faith of the ancient Church respecting him;
— the evidence that he has long since come;
— the consideration and vindication of Daniel’s prophecy of the 70 weeks;
— Jewish traditions about the Messiah;
— proof that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah;
— Objections of Jews against Christianity;
— the state and ordinances of the Church, before, and during the time of
the law;
— the law itself, its precepts, promises, and threatenings;
— the Tabernacle, the priesthood, and its sacrifices;
The second volume is entirely occupied with the consideration of the
Priesthood of Christ, and the day of sacred rest. Respecting the former of
these subjects, he remarks in his preface:
“It is wholly outside the compass of my knowledge, if the reader can find any other work in
which the doctrine of the Priesthood of Christ has been so handled in its proper order and
method, as to its origin, causes, nature, and effects.”
Without professing to be entirely of Dr. Owen’s views in every part of
these prolix dissertations, it must be admitted that it is but a small and
comparatively unimportant part to which any Christian can take
exception; and the richness and scriptural piety which run through the
whole, render them particularly interesting.
327
The subjects are in themselves highly delightful; and few human writings
exist, in which they are so ably treated. They abound in Rabbinical
learning, particularly the first part of them. This was, perhaps, necessary,
as they involve so minute a discussion of the Jewish controversy. But I
am not aware that this branch of learning is of so much importance to the
elucidation of Scripture, as was then supposed. Owen, if any man, was
qualified to bring it to bear upon the New Testament. And yet I do not
perceive that much information can be derived from his use of it. Let any
man examine the writings of Lightfoot, and Pococke, and Schoetgen, the
great masters of Rabbinical lore, and he will perhaps be astonished at the
little advantage that accrues to Biblical interpretation from their labours.
Indeed, it is scarcely reasonable to expect anything but disappointment
from them. The ancient Jewish writers or critics, with the exception of the
earlier Talmuds, are all lost. And the more modern Rabbins were such a
race of drivellers, that their writings contain the largest portion of trash
and nonsense to be found in the world. A little acquaintance with them
will gratify curiosity, and at times perhaps supply a hint or an argument
— but to expect anything like enlightened criticism in them, is about as
reasonable as to look for it from children.
The Exposition itself may be considered in a three-fold light: (1) as an
explanation of a portion of Scripture; (2) as a body of controversy, and (3)
as a practical application of Divine truth. As an explanation, or exegetical
illustration of an important epistle, it is distinguished by the general
accuracy of its interpretations, and the conscientious manner in which
the author endeavoured to trace out the meaning of the Divine writer.
328
There are works of this nature, and on this very book, which reveal a
greater parade of learning; and in which the meaning of particular texts is
more accurately defined. For example, Pierce and Hallet’s work on the
Hebrews contains more critical learning; and the work of Mr. Archibald
M’Lean of Edinburgh frequently corrects the minor mistakes of Owen.
But neither of them, on the whole, compares with his. The leaven of
Arianism in the former, and the dryness of the latter, render them less
useful, and also less interesting. The following passage of Owen’s preface
deserves the attention of all his readers, and especially of all who attempt
to expound the word of God. It gives an admirable view of his state of
mind, and of the principles on which he proceeded in his interpretation,
“For the exposition of the epistle itself, I confess, as was said before, that I have had thoughts of
it for many years, and I have not been without regard towards it, in the whole course of my
studies. Yet I must now say that, after all my searching and reading, prayer and assiduous
meditation have been my only resort — and by far the most useful means of light and assistance.
By these, my thoughts have been freed from many entanglements into which the writings of
others had thrown me, or from which they could not deliver me. I have been as careful as I am of
life and soul — to bring no prejudicial sense to the words; to impose no meaning of my own nor
other men’s upon them; nor to be imposed on by the reasonings, pretences, or curiosities of any
— but always went nakedly to the word itself, to humbly learn the mind of God in it, and to
express 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 other
authors —but especially in the LXX of the Old Testament, in the books of the New Testament,
and particularly the writings of the same author.
329
Oft-times the words expressed out of the Hebrew, or the things alluded to among that people, I
found to give much light to the words of the apostle. To the general rule of attending to the
design and scope of the passage, the subject treated, mediums fixed on for arguments and
methods of reasoning, I still kept in my eye the time and season of writing this epistle, the state
and condition of those to whom it was written, their persuasions, prejudices, customs, light, and
traditions; I also kept in my view, the covenant and worship of the church of old; the translation
of covenant privileges and worship to the Gentiles on a new account; the course of providential
dispensations that the Jews were under; the near expiration of their church and state; the
speedy approach of their utter abolition and destruction, with the temptations that befell them
on all these various accounts — without which it is impossible for anyone to justly follow the
apostle so as to keep close to his design, or to fully understand his meaning.”
Such views, under the Divine blessing, and directed by the judicious
perseverance of Owen, could not fail to be attended with the most
important result: they embrace everything that could be necessary or
useful to the interpretation of Scripture.
The Exposition also contains a large portion of controversy, chiefly on
two subjects, or embracing two classes: Jews and Socinians. It is obvious
how the former came to occupy so much of his attention; but the reason
for his introducing the latter may require some explanation. The Polish
Socinians had directed all their strength and ingenuity against the
Scripture doctrine of the sacrifice and priesthood of Christ.
330
They endeavoured to make out that the language of Scripture on that
subject, was not to be understood literally, but metaphorically — and of
course, that there is no such thing as a real sacrifice or priesthood
belonging to Christianity. Owen considered these things to be at the
foundation of all Christian faith and hope, and to constitute the grand
subjects of the Epistle. He could not allow so fair an opportunity to
escape, of vindicating from such Socinian glosses, the important
statements and doctrines of revelation. If his zeal for what he believed to
be truth sometimes carried him rather far, and led him to occasionally
find fault with some sentiments that were not very remote from truth,
and to express himself strongly against them because they were held by
persons infected with heresy — it is only what we might expect from a
mind so ardently attached to evangelical doctrine. Without adopting all of
Dr. Owen’s sentiments, the Christian who wishes to be established in the
truths that were controverted by the Socinians, will find in this work such
a body of evidence and argument in support of them, that it must remove
any reasonable ground for scepticism and unbelief. We do not hesitate to
affirm that the proper understanding of the Epistle to the Hebrews alone,
is amply sufficient to put to flight all the sophistry and declamation of the
adversaries of the Deity, sacrifice, and priesthood of Christ — from
Faustus Socinus to Thomas Belsham. On the Jewish controversy, there is
almost everything that is of importance. In fact, it will be found that on a
number of subjects, a satisfactory reply to a Jew, is also a sufficient
answer to a Socinian.
The practical tendency and application of the whole, are not the least
important features of this work. The eminent godliness, as well as the
author’s learning, conspicuously appear on every page.
331
“His reasonings always terminate in some holy result. After reading the criticisms of an accurate
scholar, the arguments of a sound logician, and the illustrations of a fertile mind, we are
furnished with directions for self-examination; or we are sent away to our closets with a warm
492
exhortation to abound in prayer if we hope to understand the mind of the Spirit.”
This is just as it ought to be. The theory of Christianity without the
practice, is like a body without the spirit; and the practice without the
theory is not a reasonable service. To treat the Bible like an ancient
classic, is using an unholy freedom with its sacred contents; while
indifference to the precise meaning of the Holy Spirit, manifests
ignorance of the important connexion that subsists between right
sentiments and suitable practice in religion — as well as a lack of regard
for the authority of God speaking in his word.
Notwithstanding this threefold division of the work, and the intimate
connexion of its several parts with each other, it is so constructed that
any of the departments may be read separately.
“The method of the whole,” says the author, “is so disposed, that anyone, by the sole guidance of
his eye, may carry on his reading of any one part of the whole without interruption, or mixing
any other discourses with it. Thus he may, in the first place, go over our consideration of the
original text, with the examination of ancient and modern translations, and the grammatical
construction and signification of the words, without diverting to anything else that is discoursed
on the text. In like manner, if any desire to peruse the exposition of the text and context, with
the declaration and vindication of the meaning of the Holy Ghost in them, without the least
intermixture of any practical discourses deduced from them, he may — under the same
guidance, and with the same labour — confine himself to this from the beginning to the end of
the work.
332
And because the practical observations, with their improvements, virtually contain in them the
sense and exposition of the words, and give light to the intention of the apostle in his whole
design, for all I know some may desire to exercise themselves principally in those discourses.
They may do this by following the series and distinct continuation of them, from first to last.”
Thus, the Critic, the Expositor, and the plain Christian, may all find
something to their taste, and to exercise their minds.
It would be superfluous labour to enlarge on the execution of the work,
after what has been already said, and the high rank it has long held
among the standard books of exegetical theology. This is more especially
so, because the improved and more portable edition of Dr. Wright, has
now brought it within reach of many who otherwise must have judged its
merits entirely from reports. However, it may not be unnecessary to state
that it is the fruit of more than twenty years’ labour of the industrious
author. It was a long and chequered period, during which Owen
complains of “straits and exclusion from the use of books” which
occasioned “uncertainties, failings, and mistakes” — which he prays “the
reader may never experience.” Without any exaggeration, we may apply
to this undertaking, the elegant and sorrowful language of our great
English lexicographer,
“The exposition of the Hebrews was written with little assistance from the learned, and without
any patronage of the great; not in the soft obscurities of retirement, or under the shelter of
academic bowers, but amidst inconvenience and distraction, in sickness and in sorrow.”
333
Such was the importance -which the author himself attached to it, that he
said when it was finished — “Now my work is done, it is time for me to
493
die.” On the Continent, the work has been long highly valued. Walch
says of it, “Egregium est opus hoc, locuples testis de auctoris singulari
eruditione, atque industria, quam ad illud conficiendum adhibuit.”
It was translated into Dutch and published in quarto at Rotterdam in
1733. Le Long also mentions the proposal of a Latin translation of it at
494
Amsterdam in 1700; but whether it ever appeared I am unable to say.
The late Dr. Williams, of Rotheram, published an abridgement of it in 4-
vols. 8vo. in the year 1790. This was rendering a service to the cause of
sacred literature, when the folio edition was so scarce and so expensive.
Some also may be disposed to read the abridgement rather than the
extended original. While it merits the praise of fidelity, so far as I have
observed, those who wish to ascertain the sentiments and enter into the
feelings of Dr. Owen, will find it necessary to consult the original work.
I know no ancient or modern work of an expository nature, that will bear
a fair comparison on the whole, with the Exposition of the Hebrews. Caryl
on Job, is fully equal to it in magnitude; but he falls far short in the
interest which it excites, and the ability which it displays. Its author,
though a learned and pious man, was far from being equal to Owen. And
the subject on which he chose to exercise his own patience and that of his
readers, cannot be considered so valuable to the church as that of his
friend and successor.
334
The celebrated work of Vitringa on Isaiah, has deservedly obtained an
equal reputation with that of Owen on the Hebrews. It contains a larger
portion of critical learning, and displays no less of acuteness and talent.
But it is still more systematic than Owen’s work — often fanciful — -and
sometimes erroneous. It is, however, instar omnium on Isaiah. The work
of Professor Lampe on the Gospel of John, with its valuable dissertations,
is somewhat similar to Owen’s. Belonging to the same school, possessed
of varied learning — and of patient industry — he is strictly orthodox, and
exhausts almost every topic of importance in the Evangelist. But he does
not always interest the mind sufficiently in his discussions, and is
occasionally rather fond of mystical interpretations.
The chief objection to the Exposition of the Hebrews is its vast extent —
four folio, or seven large 8vo. volumes on one epistle — and that not the
longest in the New Testament. It appears to be a rather cumbrous
apparatus of explanation. Much of the work, it must be acknowledged, is
not necessary to the interpretation of the apostle’s language. Yet, in
general, the connexion between the text and the commentary is neither
forced nor unnatural; it is surprising how little occurs that we wish had
been omitted. Like several other larger productions of the author, it
contains a very entire and valuable system of Divinity. There are few
points of Divine truth on which the reader will not find important
information. On this account, the index belonging to the octavo edition
will be found of particular service. If the fame of Walton rests on the
495
Polyglot, and that of Poole on the Synopsis, then the Exposition of the
Hebrews — even if Owen had written nothing else — forms a pedestal on
which he will appear an object of admiration to all future generations.


CHAPTER XI.
Persecuting conduct of the Congregationalists in New England — Remonstrances of Owen and his
brethren on the subject — Owen publishes on the Trinity — His controversy with Parker — His
Truth and Innocence vindicated — Publications of others on the same side — Marvel and Parker —
Conduct of Parliament toward the Dissenters — Vernon’s attack on Owen — Owen’s defence —
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 the
measures of the Court — Becomes one of the preachers of the Morning Exercise —Publishes on
Evangelical Love — Death of Caryl — Union of Caryl’s and Owen’s Church under the Doctor —
Notices of persons of distinction who were members of the Church — The Parliament offended
with the King’s Indulgence — Notices of distinguished Noblemen whose friendship Owen enjoyed
— His interviews with the King and Duke of York — Work on Communion attacked by Sherlock —
Owen’s vindication — Controversy occasioned by Sherlock’s book — Owen publishes on the Holy
Spirit — Review of all his writings on that subject — Attacked by Clagett — Publishes on Apostasy
— Marries his second wife.
For several years, the New England Congregationalists had been
employing very oppressive measures to suppress the Baptists and
Quakers. Their highly improper and Antichristian conduct has often been
alleged as evidence of the persecuting dispositions of Independents (as
well as others) when they are possessed of power. It would be foolish to
deny that men calling themselves Independents may be persecutors; but
all who understand the principles and the spirit of Independency, must
ever maintain that such conduct is inconsistent with it. A little
acquaintance with the proceedings in New England, against which Dr.
Owen and his brethren protested, will satisfy us that Independency had
almost nothing to do with them.
The Brownists, who colonized New England, understood most thoroughly
the principles of religious liberty. But they had moved from Holland to
America, as a church, and were little conversant in the science of
legislation and political economy.
336
They therefore formed state laws on the principles of the New Testament,
and the discipline of the church of Christ. They did not perceive (which
should scarcely surprise us) the impossibility of managing a growing
population by such means, in a new country, without sacrificing the
liberty of the subject, or the purity of the church. At first, the body of the
people were Christians, and of one mind. A considerable time elapsed
before the erroneous principles on which their legislative code was
founded, made their appearance. It was still longer before they
understood the proper remedy. The subsequent emigrations from Britain
consisted of many persons who greatly differed from the original settlers
on various subjects — even though they fell into their general measures
and views. Most of the Puritans who went over to New England were
attached to a species of Presbyterianism, rather than to Independency.
From this arose the peculiar complexion which the churches there
exhibited after a time. They had their regular meetings of synods and
councils, in which the civil magistrate occupied a place; and the laws or
regulations of these groups were enforced by his authority. It is an
obvious misapplication of the term “Independency,” to apply it to such a
procedure, and it is unjust to make it accountable for the consequences.
496
It is not the name, but the spirit and conduct, which reveal the system
497
to which we belong.
337
Their behaviour was considered so contrary to the word of God, that on
hearing of it, a letter was written by the Independent ministers in
London. At their head was Dr. Owen, remonstrating with their brethren,
and entreating them to desist from such proceedings. Without entering
into the merits of the differences between them, and the persons who
were suffering, they urge a variety of suitable and important
considerations to convince them of the necessity of altering their
measures. And thus they conclude:
“You have the advantage of truth and order; you have the gifts and learning of an able ministry
to manage and defend them; you have the care and vigilance of a very worthy magistracy to
countenance and protect them, and to preserve the peace; and above all, you have a blessed Lord
and Master who has the keys of David, who opens and no man shuts, living forever to take care
of his own concerns among his saints. And assuredly, you need not be disquieted, though a few
persons, through their own infirmity and weakness — or through their ignorance, darkness, and
prejudices — should to their disadvantage turn out of the way, in some lesser matters, into
byways of their own. We only make it our hearty request that you trust God with his truth and
ways, so far as to suspend all rigorous proceedings imposing corporal restraints or punishments
on persons who dissent from you, and who practise the principles of their dissent without
498
danger or disturbance to the civil peace of the place.”
Dr. Mather acknowledges that this letter, dated the 25th of March, 1669,
was not attended at the time with all the effects it should have produced.
But at length, it and other means contributed to give the New England
churches better views.
338
It shows, however, what the sentiments of Dr. Owen and his brethren
were, respecting coercive measures; and it completely exculpates them
from all participation in conduct which cannot be too severely
 499
reprobated.
In 1669, Owen published “A Brief Declaration and Vindication of the
Doctrine of the Trinity, as also, of the Person and Satisfaction of Christ.”
18mo. pp. 252. It was occasioned, he tells us in the preface, “by no
particular provocation he had received, nor by any particular work in
opposition to the doctrine contended for; but entirely by his desire to
promote the edification and establishment of the plain Christian.” After
what has been said on the Trinity in our account of the controversy with
Biddle, and because we must resume it again in reviewing a larger
subsequent performance of the Doctor’s, it is unnecessary to enter upon it
now. This contains the same sentiments, stripped of their controversial
dress, and illustrated simply from the Scriptures themselves. It has been
500
frequently reprinted, and was also translated into the Dutch language.
The next year, Owen was engaged in a very ill-tempered controversy on
the subject of Non-conformity. The High Church party was constantly
increasing their malignant hostility to the poor suffering Dissenters, and
resorted to every mode of aggression that was likely to make them
miserable. It was impossible, however, to ruin them entirely, till every
principle of liberty was rooted out of the country.
339
To consummate this execrable project, Samuel Parker (whom we have
spoken of before), published “A Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politic, in
which the authority of the Civil Magistrate over the Consciences of
Subjects in matters of external religion, is asserted; the mischiefs and
inconveniences of Toleration are represented, and all pretences pleaded
in behalf of Liberty of Conscience are fully answered.” 8vo. pp. 326, 1670.
501
In this vile production, the Non-conformists are grossly slandered, and
their sentiments represented as incompatible with the peace and security
of government. The most extravagant powers are ascribed to the
magistrate in all things civil and religious, and the blindest and most
abject submission to his authority is enjoined.
It was imperiously necessary to meet this attack. Dr. Owen applied to
Baxter to undertake the defence of Non-conformity. But he declined the
task, considering himself excepted from the reproaches which had been
thrown out; and he felt that if he were to answer Parker, they would soon
502
make him as odious as the rest. The Doctor therefore took him up on
it, and acquitted himself with great credit in his “Truth and Innocence
Vindicated; in a Survey of a Discourse on Ecclesiastical Polity,” etc. 8vo,
pp. 410, 1670. Owen ludicrously sums up the substance of Parker’s work
in the following Royal decree: —
“We have a universal and absolute power over the consciences of all our subjects in things
pertaining-to the worship of God — so that, if we please, we can introduce new duties never yet
heard of, in the most important parts of religion. And we may impose on them in the practice of
religion and divine worship, whatever we please; so that in our judgment, it does not
countenance vice, nor disgrace the Deity. This power is naturally inherent in us; it was not given
or granted to us by Jesus Christ, but belonged to us or our predecessors before he was ever born.
340
And this is such that we ourselves, if we would, might exercise the special offices or duties of
religion in our own person — especially that of the Priesthood — though we are pleased to
transfer the exercise of it to others. All our prescriptions, impositions, and injunctions on these
things, immediately affect and bind the consciences of our subjects, because they are ours.
Whether they are right or wrong, true or false, we enact and ordain as follows: — [Here insert, if
you please, the author’s scheme of religion, given in the second chapter.] That every man may,
and does think and judge whatever he pleases concerning the things enjoined and enacted by us.
For what have we to do with their thoughts and judgments? They are under the empire and
dominion of conscience, which we cannot invade, even if we would. They may, if they please,
judge them inconvenient, foolish, absurd — indeed, contrary to the mind, will, and law of God.
Our only intention, will, and pleasure is to bind them to the constant observation and practice of
503
them, and that is under the penalties of hanging and damnation.”
Extravagant as this statute may appear, it is composed chiefly of Parker’s
own words and phrases, and in the sense too in which he used them. It is
scarcely necessary to say that Owen’s Vindication is a triumphant
exposure of the folly and iniquity of such sentiments. Indeed they cannot
bear examination; and the chief difficulty in replying to them is their
intrinsic absurdity and madness.
341
Yet such was the confidence or vanity of Parker, that after the publication
of his Polity, he said to the Earl of Anglesea, “Let us see, my Lord,
whether any of your chaplains can answer it.” Parker looked upwards for
support, and did not care at what expense he wrote himself into a
Bishopric. The substance of his Polity was preached at Lambeth; and it
was printed by the orders of Sheldon, a man of similar sentiments and
spirit. The Doctor’s work greatly tended to promote his celebrity among
the Dissenters; and did great credit to his talents and spirit, as well as
good to the cause. Besides, by Dr. Owen’s “Truth and Innocence,” Parker
was very roughly handled by several anonymous antagonists. “Insolence
and Impudence triumphant: Envy and Fury enthroned: the Mirror of
Malice and Madness, in a late Treatise entitled,” etc. 1670. “Toleration
Discussed in two Dialogues.” 1670. “Criticisms on a new book, entitled
Ecclesiastical Polity.” 1670. “A Free Inquiry into the Causes of that very
great esteem the Non-conformist ministers are in with their followers.”
1673. These are only some of the productions which appeared on the side
of the Non-conformists.
Next year, Parker published “A Defence and Continuation of the
Ecclesiastical Polity,” against Dr. Owen; and in the following year, a still
further attack on him in a preface which he wrote to a posthumous work
504
of Bishop Bramhall. These works abounded in the lowest abuse of
Owen. He calls him the “Great Bell-weather of disturbance and sedition.”
— “The viper,” he says, “is so swelled with venom that it must either
burst, or spit its poison.” — “The dunghill is his only magazine, and
calumny his only weapon.”
342
He openly avows that,
“If Dr. Owen had been treated as ill or worse than is alleged, yet it can never be pretended that
he was treated worse than he deserved. For he was a person of so pernicious a temper, of so
much insolence, of such a restless implacable spirit, of such a sworn and inveterate hatred
toward the government of the church and state, that without ceremony or fear of incivility, he
ought to have been pursued as the greatest pest and most dangerous enemy of the church and
commonwealth; and whoever wishes well to his country, can never do it greater service than by
beating down the interest and reputation of such sons of Belial.”
This was speaking out with a vengeance, and silence was the only reply to
such shocking language., All this is prefixed by Bramhall’s defence of
himself and his brethren against the charge of Popery. He was the fast
friend of Laud and the other Ultras of that period. He was one of those
ardent and secular spirits who mainly assisted in stretching the bow of
Ecclesiastical prerogative, until it finally broke in their hands. Parker
imitated his “Patron Lord,” and produced the same glorious effect.
Although Owen appeared no more in this controversy, it by no means
terminated here. The vainglorious Churchman was doomed to receive a
scourging from the hands of a Layman, which must have made him
writhe in every sinew. Charles and his court were passionately devoted to
wit and raillery. They gloried in a Butler, whose burlesque poetry exposed
the Puritans to contempt, and broke the edge of public censure against
505
themselves. The other party, however, could boast a Marvel — who was
a wit and a poet too, — the most patriotic senator of his time, whose
ironic muse often lashed the follies and the vices of the court. This witty
writer took up the conceited clergyman, and in his “Rehearsal
Transprosed.” It turned all the laughers against him, and it was read with
506
delight from the king down to the tradesman.
343
There are times and subjects which require the use of ridicule; and it will
sometimes succeed, if judiciously managed, when graver argument fails.
— “Ridiculum acri
507
Fortius, et melius magnas plerumque secat res.”
Parker and his party were now driven to the necessity of a defence against
this unexpected mode of repelling them. Victory was no longer thought
of, if a decent retreat could only be effected. They assailed Marvel with all
manner of weapons. In a twinkling there appeared, A Reproof to the
Rehearsal Transprosed; Rosemary and Bayes; The Transproser
Rehearsed; Gregory Father Greybeard, with his vizor off; A Common-
place Book, out of the Rehearsal Transprosed; Stoo him Bayes; etc.
Marvel, undismayed by such a shower of missiles, returned to the charge.
In a second part of the Rehearsal, he again overwhelmed his adversaries,
and effectually silenced their battery. It was generally admitted that the
odds and victory were on his side. And it had this effect on Parker, says
Wood: that he judged it more prudent to lay down the cudgels than to
enter the lists again with an untowardly combatant, so hugely well-versed
508
in the then but newly refined art of sporting and jeering buffoonery.
Although Parker retreated from any further attack after the second part
of the Rehearsal appeared, in truth he only suppressed those passions to
which he was giving vent in secrecy and silence. Indeed, that was not
discovered till a posthumous work of his was published, in which one of
the most striking parts is a disgusting caricature of his old antagonist.
344
Marvel was indeed a republican, the pupil of Milton, and he adored his
master. But his morals and his manners were Roman — he lived on the
turnip of Curtius, and he would have bled at Philippi. We do not
sympathise with the fierce spirit of those unhappy times, that scalped the
head feebly protected by a mitre or a crown. But the private virtues and
509
the rich genius of such a man are purely from the spirit of party.
The Parliament which met in 1670, fell upon the Non-conformists more
furiously than ever. They revived the Act against Conventicles, and made
it severer than before. After it had passed the commons, Dr. Owen was
requested to draw up some reasons against it, which were laid before the
house of lords by several persons of distinction. He pointed out in plain
510
and strong language, its unjust and impolitic nature. But it was all in
vain — the bill passed the lords, the whole bench of Bishops voting for it,
except Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, and Rainbow, Bishop of Carlisle. By
this iniquitous Act, the persons who attended any meetings for religious
worship, other than those of the Church of England, were made liable to
heavy fines: the preacher twenty pounds for the first offence, and forty for
the second. To encourage informers, they were entitled to one-third of
that; and it was provided that all the clauses in the Act should be
construed most largely and beneficially to suppress Conventicles, and to
511
justify and encourage all persons to be employed in its execution.
345
Neal justly remarks on this Act, that the wit of man could hardly invent
anything short of capital punishment, that was more cruel and inhuman.
Nothing less than the extermination of Dissenters seemed to be
determined; and only He who restrains the wrath of man could have
prevented its having that effect. It is scarcely conceivable how men
possessing the least particle of Christian principle or feeling, could take
part in such a measure. Yet such is the blinding influence of power, and
the deceitfulness of the heart, that professed Christians have supposed
such enactments are a service to the cause of God. Joh 16.2 These and
similar deeds of oppression in support of Ecclesiastical establishments,
by men connected with them, independent of other considerations, are
enough to blast their reputation, and to induce a conviction that the cause
which requires such support cannot be the cause of God.
512
Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis…
Attempts to ruin their fortunes, and injure their usefulness, were
combined with the cruelest machinations to blacken their private
character. So long as the Dissenting ministers stood high in public
estimation, it was found impossible to accomplish by state edicts, the
destruction of their cause. In abuse and detraction, auxiliaries were
sought to aid the common object. Parker, as we have already seen, was a
leader in this species of glorious warfare. He was joined that year by an
able and hearty co-adjutor, to whose pages I have often been indebted,
the Rev. George Vernon, a Gloucestershire Rector, who was educated at
513
Oxford while Owen presided in the university. He produced, “A Letter
to a Friend, concerning some of Dr. Owen’s principles and practices.” 4to.
pp. 78. Owen is here described as “the Prince, the Oracle, the
514
Metropolitan of Independency.”
346
He is denounced as “the Ahithophel of Oliver Cromwell — a blasphemer
and perjured person, and a libeller of authority after the restoration of
Charles II.” He is accused of having “praised God for shedding the blood
of Christian kings and their loyal subjects — and of being guilty of
reiterated perjuries against that God, whom he confidently affirmed to be
the inspirer of all his prayers.” In short, the state is invoked to take
vengeance on a miscreant whose crimes deserved the highest punishment
the laws could inflict.
We are accustomed now to hear the name of John Owen pronounced only
with respect. But these things show that he partook largely of the
common treatment of all the disciples of Christ. His name was cast out as
evil, and all manner of reproach was poured out on him falsely for the
Son of Man’s sake. The verdict of posterity is often more favourable, and
always more impartial, than that of the present generation. The memory
of the just is blessed, while that of the wicked is left to rot. The violence of
this attack was such that the Doctor found it necessary to meet it in a
short letter to Sir Thomas Overbury, from which we have frequently
515
quoted. Vernon had studied attentively the old wicked maxim,
516
Calumniare audacter, aliquid haerebit.
And Owen had learned from Father Valerian the use of another phrase,
which he very decidedly applies to his clerical opponent. To some
impudent slanders which were propagated against him, that Father
517
simply replied, “Mentiris impudentissime;” so said the amiable and
518
witty Blaise Pascal, in answer to the calumnies of the Jesuits; and so
said Owen, sans ceremonie, to the libel of the Rev. George Vernon.
347
The situation of the poor Dissenters was truly pitiable. They were baited
by all sorts of antagonists, from the royal mastiff, ready to devour, to the
contemptible church cur who could only bark or snarl. Whatever line of
conduct they pursued, they were sure to be abused. In the true spirit of
519
Procrustes, their enemies were determined to stretch them, or lop
them.
“They challenge us,” said Alsop, “to a paper duel in the most provoking language, such as would
set an edge on the most obtuse coward. If modesty, an ambition for peace, or love of retirement,
tempt us to decline the combat, we are then posted up for cowardice; but if we awaken so much
spirit as to take up the gauntlet, and return the mildest answer, then trusty R. gets it in the wind,
and immediately summons his hamlets, raises the whole posse ecclesiae and spiritual militia
upon us, and strangles the helpless infant in the cradle. If it escapes, and is written with
becoming seriousness, they have one reply, ‘this is nothing but whining or raving!’ If the style is
brisk, they have one word ready to confute it, ‘this is drollery, burlesque, buffoonery.’ Against all
of this I see no other remedy but silent complaints; or it may be this short rejoinder: — Tolle
520
Legem, et fiat disputatio.”
The learned Mr. Charles Chauncey, President of Harvard College, died in
February, 1671. It must have been about this time that Owen was invited
to become his successor— unless, because of his advanced age (Mr.
Chauncey was eighty-two at his death), Owen had been invited to the
521
office during his lifetime.
348
Dr. Owen was particularly qualified for such an office. His learning,
talents, and experience, together with the knowledge he must have
possessed of academic affairs from his situation in Oxford, all pointed
him out to his brethren in New England, as a most suitable person to fill
the important trust. Harvard College was founded about 1630, and
derived its name from Mr. John Harvard, a worthy minister, who left a
considerable sum of money to lay the foundation of a fund for its support.
Many persons in England contributed both money and books to the
infant institution. Among them were Mr. Baxter, Sir Kenelm Digby, Sir
John Maynard, Archbishop Usher, Mr. Joseph Hill, and the celebrated
Theophilus Gale, who left the greater part of his valuable library to enrich
it. The first President was Mr. Nathaniel Eaton, who was succeeded in
1640, by Mr. Henry Dunstar; he continued in office till he became Baptist
in 1654. He was succeeded by Mr. Chauncey, who remained till his death.
From this college many of the most valuable ministers in America have
522
come forth; and it continues to enjoy considerable reputation.
I have discovered no document ascertaining the fact of Owen’s invitation
to fill the Presidency. Yet, as the Memoirs prefixed to his Sermons and
Tracts assert it, as well as asserting that he had an invitation of a similar
nature from some of the Dutch universities, little doubt can be
entertained of its truth.
349
In the month of August 1671, the Magistrates and Ministers of
Massachusetts Bay, addressed a letter to their brethren in England,
imploring assistance for the support of Harvard college — the supply of a
President, and that young men might be sent over to be educated. A reply
to this letter was written and subscribed by Dr. Owen and twelve of the
London Independent Ministers. It is dated February 5th, 1672. They
deplore their great inability to afford all the relief that was needed, but
intimate that they were doing something for their assistance, which
would be sent afterwards. They regret the difficulty of finding a President,
and recommend Dr. Hoar — a member of Mr. Collins’ church, who was
then proceeding to New England. It is an exceedingly Christian and
affectionate letter, and shows how cordially the churches on both sides of
the Atlantic were disposed to support and countenance each other. Dr.
523
Hoar was accordingly chosen President. But in consequence of some
misunderstanding between him and the students, he resigned early in
1675, and died soon after. He had been originally educated in Harvard
college himself, but came over to England in 1653, where he took his
524
degree of M. D., and married a lady of rank of the name of Lisle.
This same year, 1653, the Doctor published his work on the Sabbath,
which he had originally designed to form part of his Exercises on the
Epistle to the Hebrews; but for particular reasons he now issued it by
itself. His great object in it, is to establish the authority, and illustrate the
duties and privileges of the day of sacred rest. The fanatics of the
Commonwealth, among their other extravagances, had disputed its
Divine obligation, and contended that it was a part of the ceremonial Law
abrogated by Christ. From maintaining that every day alike was holy,
they had proceeded to make every day alike profane. Rom 14.5
350
The publications and conversation of such persons had stumbled and
shaken many; but they were not the chief causes of the relaxed
observation of the Lord’s day, which was then prevailing. The spirit of the
 525
Book of Sports still influenced the British court; and Episcopal writers
had done much to shake the faith of the country in the privilege and
sacred obligation of the Christian rest. The design and tendency of Peter
Heylin’s History of the Sabbath were to destroy its sanctification, and to
root up the principles generally entertained by Christians on that subject.
All decent regard for the Sabbath was completely thrown off by the king
and his ministers. Their private conduct on that day, as it appears from a
note in a former part of this work, was execrably immoral. And when they
attended the worship of God, it seemed to be their chief design to afford a
public exhibition of the highest contempt of God, and of sacred things.
The effect of such an example may easily be conceived. The serious
observation of the first day of the week was a decided evidence of
Puritanism, which was held in more abomination than the grossest
debauchery. A general looseness of manners began to prevail, and the
mighty torrent of iniquity threatened to sweep all sobriety and godliness
from the land.
It was the duty of all who feared God, and desired to promote the
interests of religion, to counteract this growing, and very dangerous evil.
The work on the Sabbath was peculiarly calculated to repress iniquity,
and to establish truth. It abounds in learned and judicious reasonings
which, in general, without quoting opponents, Owen effectually
demolishes their sceptical doubts, or sophistical declamations.
351
It reveals his mighty acquaintance with the Scriptures, and with all sacred
and profane antiquity, as well as with the history of the church. He
establishes, by incontrovertible evidence, the Divine appointment of the
first day of the week as the day of holy rest. And in his illustration of its
nature, he is equally remote from both the ceremonial rigidity of judaical
worship, and the looseness of popish and prelatical allowance. He notes,
on one hand, the evil which,
“consists in the accommodation of the laws, and precepts, and institutions of God, to the lusts,
and present courses and practices of men. A mystery of iniquity to this purpose has been
revealed of late, tending to the utter debauching of the lives and consciences of men. A work
exceedingly acceptable to all sorts of persons who, if not given up to open atheism, would rejoice
in nothing more, than in a reconciliation between the rule of their conscience, and their lusts,
that they might sin freely and without remorse.”
On the other hand, he acknowledges, that some,
“have collected whatever they could think of that is good, pious, and useful in the practice of
 religion, and prescribed it all in a multitude of instances, as necessary to the sanctification of
this day — so that a man can scarcely, in six days, read over all the duties that are proposed to be
observed on the seventh. They have laboured more to multiply directions about external duties
— giving them out, as it were, by number or list — than to direct the mind to a due performance
of the whole duty of the sanctification of the day, according to the spirit and genius of gospel
obedience. And some measuring others by themselves, and by their own abilities, have been apt
to tie men up to such long tiresome duties, and rigid abstinences, that have cloaked their minds,
526
and turned the whole service of the day into a wearisome bodily exercise that profits little.”
352
These and some other expressions in this work, occasioned an unpleasant
misunderstanding of his meaning among several of his brethren, and
brought upon the Doctor great distress and vexation. He had also said
that,
“The observation of the Lord’s day is to be commensurate to the use of our natural strength on
any other day, from morning to night. The Lord’s day is to be set apart to the ends of a holy rest
unto God, by everyone, as his natural strength enables him to employ himself in his lawful
527
occasions any other day of the week.”
We should think there is nothing in this language very liable to exception,
or capable of being misunderstood. That God does not require greater
exertion in his service on the Sabbath, than we are capable of making in
our own service on other days, would seem to be the doctrine of common
sense, as well as of the Scriptures. The sentiment, however, produced an
expostulatory letter from Eliot, the apostle of the American Indians, to
which the Doctor wrote a reply. This claims our attention, not only
because it vindicates Owen from unfounded suspicion of being
unfavourable to the moral obligation of the Lord’s day; but also because it
affords a fine specimen of the tenderness of his feelings, under the
sufferings and unjust reproaches with which he had been frequently
loaded.
353
“As to what concerns the natural strength of man, either I was under some mistake in my
expression, or you seem to be so in your apprehension. I never thought, and I have not said, that
the continuance of the Sabbath is to be commensurate to the natural strength of man, but only
that it is an allowable means of men’s continuance in Sabbath duties. This, I suppose, you will
not deny, lest you cast the consciences of professors into inextricable difficulties. When first I
engaged in that work, I did not intent to have spoken one word about the practical observation
of the day; but only to endeavour the revival of a truth which, at present, is despised among us,
and strenuously opposed by sundry Divines of the United Provinces, who call the doctrine of the
528
Sabbath, Figmentum Anglicanum. It was on the desire of some learned men in these parts,
that I undertook the vindication of it. Having now discharged the debt which I owed to the truth
in this matter, and to the church of God, I suppose I shall not again engage on that subject.
Though it was not as I ought, it was done with such a composition that I hope, through the
 mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, it might find acceptance with God, and with his saints.
“I suppose there is scarcely anyone alive in the world, who has more reproaches cast on him
than I have — though up to now God has been pleased, in some measure, to support my spirit
under them. I still relieved myself by this: that my poor endeavours have found acceptance with
the churches of Christ. But my holy, wise, and gracious Father sees it needful to test me in this
matter also. And what I have received from you — which, it may be, does not contain your sense
alone — has printed deeper, and left a greater impression on my mind, than all the virulent
revilings and false accusations I have met with from my professed adversaries. I acknowledge to
you, that I have a dry and barren spirit, and I heartily beg your prayers that the Holy One would,
notwithstanding all my sinful provocations, water me from above. But that I should now be
apprehended to have given a wound to holiness in the churches, is one of the saddest frowns in
the cloudy brows of Divine Providence.
354:
I have asserted the doctrine of the Sabbath, though not as it ought, yet as well as I could. I have
pleaded for the observation of it in holy duties, to the utmost of the strength for those whom God
shall be pleased to give us. I have also declared the necessity of a serious preparation for it, in
sundry previous duties. But now, to meet with severe expressions — it may be, ‘tis the will of
God that vigour should hereby be given to my former discouragements; and that there is a call in
529
it to cease from these kinds of labours.”
While we sympathise with Owen in the sufferings which this letter
describes, and admire the Christian feeling which it reveals, we are taught
by it the impropriety of forming rash judgments, and of condemning a
530
writer for the supposed meaning of an insolated paragraph, to which
his general character and sentiments are decidedly opposed. His
language respecting his sufferings and reproaches, is fully justified by the
statements we have given. And we place him in a point of view in which
he is now seldom contemplated: a companion with his brethren in the
tribulation and patience of Jesus Christ. The splendour of an object
frequently diminishes the nearer we approach it. The glory with which a
future generation sometimes encircles a devoted minister of heavenly
benevolence is, in many instances, more the effect of their distance from
him, than of their just appreciation of the actual value of his services. It
531
is, at times, as dangerous to resist the tide of popular eclat, as it is at
other times to stem the swell of popular prejudice.
355
May it not be feared that some of those who now never mention the name
of Owen except with an epithet of distinction, had they lived beside him,
would have been among his bitterest enemies? But how small a matter it
is, to seek or to obtain the honour of man during any period of this
532
temporary dispensation!
In the beginning of the year 1672, Charles perceived the bad effects of his
severity against the Dissenters, or he was desirous to promote the
interests of Popery. He issued a declaration of indulgence, in which he
assumed the right to dispense with the laws of Parliament in ecclesiastical
matters. By his own authority, he suspended the execution of all the penal
533
laws against Non-conformists and Recusants, and allowed them to
meet for public worship upon taking out a license to be granted for that
purpose. Many of the Non-conformists scrupled about the lawfulness of
availing themselves of the privilege thus granted, because it proceeded
from the assumption of an illegal power on the part of the crown. But as it
only enabled them to enjoy what they were naturally entitled to, and
which they could not lawfully be deprived of; and as the enjoyment of this
privilege was not an act of injustice to others; it seems useless to have
perplexed themselves on this subject. They were all sufficiently aware
that the grant was not made from any good will toward them; but it was
their business to accept the boon, even though bestowed with an ill grace,
or from a bad design.
356
“We did, indeed,” says Owen, “thankfully accept, and make use of this royal favour. For so many
years, we had been exposed to all manner of sufferings and penalties by which multitudes were
ruined in their estates; and some lost their lives. We were without hopes of any remission from
the Parliament, by their mistaking the true interest of the kingdom. So, we were glad to take a
little breather from our troubles, under his Majesty’s royal protection. It was designed only as an
expedient, as was usual in former times, for the peace and security of the kingdom, until the
534
whole matter might be settled in Parliament.”
When the Declaration of Indulgence was published, the Non-conformist
ministers of London desired to return thanks to his Majesty; but found
some difficulty in agreeing to the terms which they ought to employ. An
address drawn up by Dr. Seaman and Mr. Jenkins was too eulogistic, and
could not be agreed to. Baxter says that when they could not come to an
agreement about the form, they concluded on a cautious acknowledgment
of the king’s clemency, which was delivered extempore, having been
535
introduced by Lord Arlington to the royal presence for this purpose.
This, however, is not strictly correct. An address was drawn up by Dr.
Owen, agreed to by the ministers, and presented by him to his Majesty. I
am happy to be able to present a copy of this document here:
357
May it please your Majesty,
 We humbly thank you for the favour of this opportunity, in which we may acknowledge that
deep sense which we have of your gracious clemency, the effects of which we every day enjoy. It
is that alone which has interposed between the severity of some laws, and some men’s principles
and us, which otherwise would have effected our ruin — though we are persuaded that neither
the one nor the other, could countervail your Majesty’s damage thereby.
It is this, principally, in which the kings of the earth may render themselves like the King of
heaven, when by their power, wisdom, and goodness, they relieve the minds of their peaceable
subjects from fear, distress, and distracting anxieties, and trials on their persons (rendering
their lives burdensome to themselves, and useless to others) — which your Majesty has done
towards multitudes of your subjects in this nation. And we do rejoice in this advantage, to
declare to your Majesty, that as we have a conscientious respect toward all those obligations to
loyalty which lie on the commonalty of your subjects, so being capable of a particular one in the
greatest of our concerns: the liberty of our consciences and assemblies, which others are not
(they desire no more than what they esteem their right by law). We hold it our duty, which we
engage in before you, not only to be partakers with them, but to preserve in our minds a
particular readiness to serve on your Majesty’s commands and occasions, as we shall be required
or advantaged for it. And we humbly pray the continuance of your gracious favour, and we shall
pray that God would continue His presence with you in all your affairs, and continue your royal
heart in these counsels and thoughts of indulgence, whose beginnings have restored quietness to
neighbours, peace to counties, emptied prisons, and filled houses with industrious workers, and
engaged the hands of multitudes into the resolved and endeavoured readiness for your Majesty’s
service — as not knowing anything in this world that is desirable to them, beyond what they may
536
enjoy under your government, and by your favour.”
358
From Owen’s connexions, it may easily be supposed that he knew more
about what was passing at court and in Parliament, than most of his
contemporaries in the ministry. It is curious to notice the account given
by adversaries of his anxiety to ascertain what was going on, and of the
use which he made of his information.
“Witness his fishing out the king’s counsels, and inquiring whether things went well as to his
great Diana, liberty of conscience? How his Majesty stood affected to it? Whether he would
connive at it, and the execution of the laws against it? Who were, or could be made his friends at
court? What bills were likely to be put up in Parliament? How that assembly was united or
divided? etc. And, according to the current, and the disposition of affairs, he acquainted his
537
under officers, and by their letters each post, they were to inform their fraternity in each
corner of the kingdom, how things were likely to go with them, how they should order their
538
business, and for a time either omit or continue their conventicles.”
359
This account is, no doubt, exceedingly exaggerated. But if every word of it
were true, it only does honour to the Doctor’s vigilance, and his
disinterested anxiety to promote the welfare of his brethren. In such
times, neutrality was criminal, and the man who did not employ every
honourable means to avert the dangers which threatened the cause he
had espoused, was guilty of betraying it.
The Indulgence, such as it was, promoted the comfort and increase of the
churches. The Independents and Presbyterians set up a public weekly
lecture to testify of their union on the most important subjects; and to
resist the progress of Popery, Socinianism, and Infidelity. These lectures
were delivered at Pinner’s hall, on Tuesday mornings; and continued to
be carried on jointly till 1695, when the two parties divided in
539
consequence of the controversy about Crisp. The first lecturers were
Doctors Owen, Manton, and Bates, and Messrs. Baxter, Jenkins, and
Collins. Two of the discourses by Dr. Owen, were published in the
Morning Exercises. The subject of the first is, “How we may bring our
hearts to bear reproofs?” The second is on the question, “How is the
practical love of Truth the best preservative against Popery?” He entitles
it, “The Chambers of Imagery in the Church of Rome laid open; or an
Antidote against Popery.” The one was preached in 1674, the other in
1682. The last is a very long and very able discourse in which he traces, to
its true source, all the apostasy and abominations of the papacy, and of
every false system of Christianity — the loss of the personal power and
enjoyment of the truth, and the substitution of something external in
their place. This affected their views of the object of worship, of its
spiritual nature, of the character of the church of Christ, of its proper
glory, and its Divinely instituted discipline.
360
The danger from Popery at any time, arises chiefly from the prevalence of
ignorance and vice, and from its adaptation to the strongest principles of
human depravity. Let the Bible be loved and circulated, and genuine
religion prosper in those who have been the subjects of Divine mercy, and
no danger may be apprehended from Catholic emancipation, or any other
constitutional favour bestowed on the followers of the beast. Rev 13.3
In 1672, the Doctor published anonymously, “A Discourse concerning
Evangelical love, Church peace, and unity. With the occasions and
reasons of present differences and divisions about things sacred and
religious. Written in vindication of the principles and practice of some
ministers and others.” 8vo. pp. 258. This is a very excellent work, though
less known than most of Owen’s books, perhaps as a consequence of its
being without his name. His views of love and unity are admirable; and
they are brought to bear on the controversy then warmly agitated by
Baxter and some others, respecting the Dissenters attending parish
churches — to which Owen, for weighty reasons, was decidedly opposed.
In the most dispassionate, and Scriptural manner, Owen states the
corruptions and defects of national churches, and the reasons which (he
conceived) justified his own separation, and that of his brethren, from
them. The administration — the kind of connexion between the ministers
and the people which obtains in them; the entire destruction of the
original terms of communion — namely, evidences of faith and true
conversion, and the substitution of other things in their place, by which
the church “becomes a mere worldly society, and all Christian love and
unity are completely destroyed.” These are the leading grounds on which
he rests the necessity of Christians withdrawing from such institutions,
and joining together in voluntary societies.
361
It is only in churches constituted of spiritual persons (as the apostolical
churches evidently were), who have the unrestricted management of their
own affairs, under the regulation of the law of Christ, that all the benefits
of Christian fellowship can be enjoyed, and all its duties properly
discharged. It is strange, that men seeking to act simply as the primitive
disciples did, should be charged with schism, and with introducing all
manner of evil. Voluntary societies are of apostolical institution, and
national churches are a human device of a subsequent age. These are
matters of fact so palpably evident that whoever denies them scarcely
deserves to be reasoned with. It cannot be matter of surprise that many
should choose to follow the former, rather than the latter. And as it is
now so publicly avowed by the advocates of Establishments, that they
[national churches] are no part of Christianity, but only a wall for its
protection, or the means of its propagation, it can still less be wondered
at, that many should object to such an unauthorised appendage. The
work of Owen is constructed on principles, the progress of which has
been widely extended since his time. And as these are founded on the
invincible basis of Scripture and of fact, they must ultimately triumph
over every secular ecclesiastical establishment on earth. Those who
contend for these principles, may appear to be the enemies of peace, and
unity, and love. But in the end, they will be found to have been their
truest friends.
“Speciosum quidem nomen est Pacis, et pulchra opinio unitatis; sed quis ambigat eam solam
540
unicam Ecclesiae Pacem esse quae Christi est?”
362
Mr. Joseph Caryl died February 5th, 1673. He had been pastor of a
numerous Congregation, which he collected soon after the Restoration,
541
and which met for some years in Leaden-hall-street.
“His labours,” says a friend who knew him well, “were great; his studies incessant; his
conversation unspotted; his charity, faith, zeal, and wisdom, gave a fragrant smell among the
churches and servants of Christ. — His sickness, though painful, was borne with patience and
joy in believing; and so he parted from time to eternity under the full sail of desire and joy in the
Holy Spirit. He lived his own Sermons. He at last desired his friends to forbear speaking to him,
that so he might retire into himself; which time they perceived that he spent in prayer;
oftentimes lifting up his hands a little; and at last, finding his hands did not move, they drew
near and perceived he had silently departed from them, leaving many mourning hearts behind.”
542

Owen and he had long been intimate friends; they had frequently been
colleagued together in the time of the Commonwealth; their habits and
sentiments were very similar; and as their churches assembled near each
543
other, they proposed uniting together under Dr. Owen, after the death
of his esteemed friend and brother. As all parties seemed well affected
toward this proposition, the two churches met for the first time for the
joint worship of God, on the 5th of June that year. Dr. Owen preached a
very excellent and appropriate Sermon from Colossians 3.14. He
illustrates the nature and exercise of love, as the principal duty required
among saints, especially as connected in church-fellowship. He says with
much solemnity,
363
“I declare to this congregation, this day, that unless this evangelical love is exerted, not loosely
and generally, but mutually among ourselves toward each other — we shall never give our
account to Jesus Christ with joy; nor shall we ever carry on the great work of edification among
ourselves. And if God is pleased but to give this spirit among you, then I have nothing to fear but
544
the mere weakness and depravity of my own heart and spirit.”
The united church consisted of one hundred and seventy-one persons,
which is reckoned a considerable society among Independents; but it was
still more distinguished for the rank of some of its members, than for its
number. Among these were Lord Charles Fleetwood; Sir John Hartopp;
Colonel Desborough (brother-in-law to Oliver Cromwell); James Berry (a
distinguished officer of the Commonwealth army); also Lady Abney; Lady
Hartopp; Lady Vere Wilkinson; Lady Thompson; and the celebrated Mrs.
Bendish, grand-daughter to Cromwell, and remarkably like the Protector
545
in some of the strong features of his character. Religion was not then
so rare among persons of rank and family, as it has since become. And
even the Non-conformists could reckon among their members not a few
individuals in the higher walks of society, who considered it an honour to
share their sufferings, as well as their privileges. The persons now
mentioned continued to adorn the doctrine of Christ for many years, and
the Doctor remained in the oversight of them, till his death. I will
introduce here, a few gleanings from their history.
364
Charles Fleetwood, son-in-law to Cromwell, was sprung from an ancient
family, formerly in Lancashire. He held a post in the court of Charles I,
but joined the Parliament, and soon rose to the highest honours which it
could bestow. In 1647, he was one of the Commissioners appointed to
deal with the King; he had no involvement in the king’s death afterwards.
On the death of Ireton, he married his widow; after which he was made
Commander-in-chief of the army in Ireland, which he entirely secured.
He was made one of Oliver’s Lords, and is therefore often called Lord
Charles Fleetwood. He obtained favour after the Restoration, and lived
privately for the most part at Stoke Newington, where he died soon after
the Revolution, He suffered much for his principles as a dissenter. At one
time, the fines imposed on him and on Sir John Hartopp (who was
married to one of his daughters), and a few others, amounted to £6000
546
or £7000. , Owen appears to have been strongly attached to Fleetwood,
547
as some of his letters to him show. He is accused of cowardice, though
I suspect unjustly — this was not a common vice in the leaders of the
Commonwealth. Granger says he had no great skill as a soldier, and less
as a politician; but he had a very powerful influence over the bigoted part
of the army. He thought that prayers superseded the use of carnal
weapons, and that it was sufficient to trust in the hand of Providence,
548
without exerting the arm of flesh. This, however, is the common style,
in which the men of that period are reproached for placing dependence
on God for the success of their exertions. The measures which they
employed, in general, sufficiently prove that they knew how to use means,
as well as to exercise trust.
365
Noble acknowledges that “he was religious, and had the greatest
veneration for civil liberty.” Determined that what are virtues in ordinary
men, should be deformities in Fleetwood, Noble adds, “but his ideas of
both were so romantic, fantastical, and erroneous, that they were
549
blemishes instead of ornaments to his character.”
Major-General Berry was originally a clerk in an ironwork, according to
Baxter; a wood-monger in London, according to Noble. He was at an
early period the bosom friend of Mr. Baxter, who highly esteemed him,
and says,
“He was a man of great sincerity before the wars, and of very good natural parts, especially
mathematical and mechanical. Affectionate in religion, and while conversant with humbling
Providences, doctrines, and company, a great enemy to pride. But when Cromwell made him his
favourite, and his extraordinary valour was crowned with extraordinary success, his mind, his
aim, his talk, and all was altered.”
In a word, he became an Independent, by which he lost Baxter’s good
opinion of him; but it does not therefore follow that he deserved to lose it.
He represented the counties of Hereford and Worcester in 1656, and was
removed to Cromwell’s upper house the following year. He was a leading
instrument in pulling down Richard Cromwell, and an active member of
the Council of State. Baxter admits, which is a strong testimony to Berry’s
character (considering the opinion which we just quoted) — “that he lived
afterward as honestly as could be expected in one who takes error for
truth, and evil to be good. He was for some time after the Restoration, a
prisoner in Scarborough Castle; but upon being released, he became a
gardener.” I do not know how to reconcile this with the fact that
Parliament ordered Berry to retire from London to whichever of his seats
was farthest from the city. It is probable that he lost much of his property,
but not likely that he lost the whole. I have not been able to ascertain
550
when he died.
366
Sir John Hartopp was distinguished both for his Christian character, and
for the high respectability of his family. His grandfather was created a
baronet by James I in 1619, only a few years after the institution of the
order. He was born in 1637, and at an early period of his life cast his lot
with the Independents. He married the daughter of Charles Fleetwood,
Esq. and thus became allied to the Cromwell family. Lady Hartopp died
Nov. 9, 1711. It was after her funeral that Dr. Watts preached and
551
published “The last enemy conquered.” Sir John lived to the advanced
age of eighty-five, and upon his death, April 1, 1722, Dr. Watts preached
the most beautiful of all his discourses: “The happiness of separate spirits
made perfect.” As Sir John and Lady Hartopp were not only members of
the church of which Dr. Watts was pastor, but as he had resided five years
in their house as tutor to their eldest son, the Doctor was particularly
qualified to bear testimony to the character of these estimable
individuals. He says little of Lady Hartopp, though what he does say is
highly to her honour; but he gives a full-length portrait of Sir John.
“The Book of God was his chief study, and his divinest delight. His bible lay before him night
and day, and he was well-acquainted with the writers who explained it best. He was desirous to
see what the Spirit of God said to men in the original languages. To this end, he commenced
some acquaintance with the Hebrew, when he was more than fifty years old; and that he might
be capable of judging any text in the New Testament, he kept his youthful knowledge of the
Greek language, in some measure, for the period of his life.
367
Among the various themes of Christian contemplation, he took particular pleasure in the
doctrines of grace, in the display of the glories of the person of Christ, God in our nature, and the
wondrous work of redemption by his cross. His conversation was pious and learned, ingenious
and instructive. He was inquisitive about the affairs of the learned world, the progress of arts
and sciences, the concerns of the nation, and the interests of the church of Christ — and on all
occasions, he was as ready to communicate as he was to inquire. His zeal for the welfare of his
country and of the church in it, carried him out to the most extensive and toilsome services in
his younger and middle age. He employed his time, his spirits, his interest, and his riches, for
the defence of this poor nation, when it was in the utmost danger of popery and ruin. He was
three times chosen representative in Parliament, for his county of Leicestershire, in those years
when a sacred zeal for religion and liberty, strove hard to bring in the bill of exclusion to prevent
the Duke of York from inheriting the crown of England. Nor was he ashamed to own and
support the despised interest of the Dissenters, when the spirit of persecution raged highest in
the days of Charles, and King James the second. He was a present refuge for the oppressed, and
the special Providence of God secured him and his friends from the fury of the oppressor. He
enjoyed an intimate friendship with that great and venerable man, Dr. Owen, and this was
mutually cultivated with zeal and delight on both sides, till death divided them.
368
A long and familiar acquaintance enabled him also to furnish many memoirs, or matters of fact,
toward that brief account of the Doctor’s life which was drawn up by another hand. Now, can we
suppose two such souls to have been so happily intimate on earth, and may we not imagine they
found each other among the brighter spirits on high? May we not indulge ourselves to believe
that our late honoured friend has been congratulated upon his arrival, by that holy man who
552
assisted to direct and lead him there?”
John Desborough was descended from a respectable family, and was
originally bred for the law. On the breaking out of the civil wars, he joined
the army of the Parliament in which, on account of his valour, he soon
obtained a regiment of horse; and in 1648, he rose to the rank of a Major
General. He was named one of the High Court of Justice, for the trial of
the King; but he had the courage to refuse to sit. He married the sister of
Oliver Cromwell, and was one of the Lords of his upper house.
Notwithstanding this, he opposed the Protector’s measures, and
successfully resisted his attempt to assume the regal dignity. At the
Restoration, he attempted to leave the kingdom, but he was arrested, and
excepted from the act of indemnity — though not to forfeit his life. The
governments of Charles and James seem to have been very jealous of
him, which is not to be wondered at, considering their conduct and his
principles. It would appear, however, that he lived quietly and privately
553
all the latter part of his life; and died shortly after the Revolution.
Granger says he was clumsy and ungainly in his person, clownish in his
554
manner, and boisterous in his behaviour.
369
Lady, or rather Mrs. Abney, as her husband was not knighted till after her
death, was a daughter of Joseph Caryl, and a partaker of the piety of her
father. Sir Thomas was descended from an honourable family at Wilsley,
in the county of Derby. He was born in January 1639. Having lost his
mother when young, he was sent to school at Loughborough, to be under
the care of his aunt, Lady Bromley, whose instructions were conducive to
those religious impressions which distinguished him throughout life. He
became a member of the church in Silver-street, under the care of Dr.
Jacomb, and afterwards of Mr. Howe. He was knighted by King William,
and chosen Lord Mayor of London in 1700. As an evidence of his piety,
on the evening of the day on which he entered on his office, he withdrew
silently from the public assembly at Guildhall, after supper, went to his
own house, and there performed family worship; then he returned to the
company. After the death of his first wife, he married in 1700, the
daughter of John Gunston, Esq.
Lady Abney was a member of the church in Bury-street; and while the
name of Dr. Isaac Watts continues to be respected, those too of Sir
Thomas and Lady Abney, under whose roof he resided for thirty-six
years, will be cherished with grateful affection. The Rev. Jeremiah Smith
was the pastor of the church when Sir Thomas died. The account which
he gives of the family religion of this Non-conformist Knight, deserves to
be quoted for the instruction of Christians in similar circumstances.
“Here were, every day, the morning and evening sacrifices of prayer and praise, and reading the
holy Scriptures. He strictly observed and sanctified the Lord’s day. God was solemnly sought and
worshipped, both before and after the family’s attendance at public ordinances. The repetition of
sermons, the reading of good books, the instruction of the household, and the singing of the
 Divine praises together, were much of the sacred employment of the holy day — variety and
brevity making the whole not burdensome but pleasant; leaving at the same time room for the
devotions of the closet, as well as for intervening works of necessity and mercy.
370
Persons coming into such a family, with a serious tincture of mind, might well cry out, ‘This is
none other than the house of God; this is the gate of heaven!’ Besides the ordinary and stated
services of religion, occasional calls and seasons for worship were also much regarded. In signal
family mercies and afflictions, in going on journeys, in undertaking and accomplishing any
matters of greater moment, God was especially owned by prayer and thanksgiving; the
assistance of ministers being often called in on such occasions. Through the whole course of his
555
life, he was priest in his own family, except when a minister happened to be present.”
Lady Thompson was a daughter of the Earl of Anglesea, and wife of John
Thompson, Lord Haversham. This Nobleman belonged to a republican
family, and was himself rather attached to that side in politics. He was
made a baronet by Charles I, and was very active against the measures of
Court during the two Popish reigns. He accordingly joined the Prince of
Orange, 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 his
principles, and gone over to the Church party, though he sometimes
continued to attend the meetings. His Lordship moved in the House of
Peers for the Princess Sophia’s coming over, as a thing necessary to the
556
preservation of the Protestant religion. Mr. Howe’s funeral sermon for
Mr. Matthew Mead, who died in Oct. 1699, is dedicated to Lord and Lady
Haversham. He speaks strongly of the value which they attached to Mr.
Mead, and of the intimacy of their friendship:
371
“Your Lordship’s great respect,” he says, “to this servant of Christ, was even hereditary, and
descended to him by you, from your family. And your Ladyship’s great value of him, though it
might take its first rise from so dear and judicious a relative, could not but receive a great
557
increase from his known worth, and your own discerning judgment.”
Dunton’s character of his Lordship, represents him as a man of
penetration and deep knowledge in the affairs of Europe; as a patriot who
asserted the rights of the Church of England, without punishing
Dissenters; as possessed of all the tenderness of good nature, and the
softness of friendship, and a generous sense of the miseries of mankind.
558

Mrs. Polhill, wife of Edward Polhill, Esq. of Burwash in Sussex, was also,
I suppose, a member of the church. At least, the Doctor addresses her in a
beautiful letter which he wrote on the occasion of her daughter’s death,
559
not only as a sister, but as the object of special affection and care. Her
husband, though a friend of Owen’s, and of the Dissenters, was himself in
the Established Church. All that I know of him will be found at the end of
the volume.
Of Lady Vere Wilkinson, I know nothing. She was the wife of a Knight, I
suppose, as I do not observe any title of this description in the Peerage or
Baronetage of England.
Of Mrs. Bendish, very full and amusing accounts have often been given.
Dr. Owen, it is said, was her favourite author; but her character was more
marked by the peculiarities of her grandfather, than by the constant
influence of Owen’s principles.
372
Dr. Watts addresses a poem against tears to her, and it is to be hoped she
is now where all eccentricities forever cease, and where all tears are
forever wiped away.
The Parliament which met this year [1672], were highly offended with the
king’s declaration of indulgence, and insisted on its being recalled. They
began, however, to distinguish between protestant and popish dissenters,
and were willing to show more favour to the former than they had been
accustomed to do. They passed the Test Act [1673], by which dissenters
were rendered incapable of holding places of power or trust under the
government; and the court soon after renewed its severities, by recalling
the licences which had been granted to the Non-conformist ministers,
and by issuing a declaration requiring the execution of the laws against
Conventicles. By these unrighteous measures, many were made to suffer
most grievously. Among the first of them, was Mr. Baxter,
560
notwithstanding his rooted dislike to rigid dissent. I do not find that
Dr. Owen suffered personally, but he was far from being unconcerned
about the sufferings of his brethren. He wrote a very spirited paper,
“Advice to the citizens of London,” in which he expresses very strongly his
opinion of the unparalleled severities inflicted on protestant dissenters.
561
His safety was very probably owing to the high respectability of some
of his connexions. He enjoyed the favour and friendship of the Earls of
Orrery and Anglesea, Lords Willoughby, Wharton, and Berkely, and of Sir
562
John Trevor, one of the secretaries of state.
373
A short account of these noblemen, who were distinguished for their
attentions to the Non-conformists, and some of them for their personal
piety, will perhaps be acceptable to the reader.
Roger Boyle, fifth son of the great Earl of Corke, and brother of the
celebrated Robert Boyle, was created lord Broghill when only seven years
of age, and under this title he is well known from the conduct of Cromwell
toward him on several occasions. He was created Earl of Orrery by
Charles II soon after the Restoration, which he had zealously promoted.
He was eminent for his attachment to the protestant cause, and rose to
the highest posts in the government of Ireland. He never made a bad
figure, except as an author. As a soldier, his bravery was distinguished,
his stratagems remarkable. As a statesman, it is sufficient to say that he
had the confidence of Cromwell. As a man, he was grateful and would
have supported the son of his friend. Like Cicero and Richelieu, he would
not be content without being a poet. Like Atticus, he prudently adapted
himself to the changes of the times; but not by a timid and cautious
conduct, or securing himself by inaction, much less by mean or sordid
563
compliances.
Arthur Annesley, son of Sir Francis Annesley, Lord Mount Norris, was
born in Dublin, in 1614. While a private young man, he was on the side of
Charles I; but afterwards he embraced that of the Parliament, to which he
rendered some important services. He was not trusted by Cromwell, but
was made president of the council of state after the fall of Richard. He
was active in this capacity for the Restoration. He enjoyed much of
Charles II’s favour, by whom he was made Earl of Anglesea, treasurer of
the navy, commissioner for resettling Ireland, and Lord privy seal.
374
He was a Calvinist in his religious sentiments, and from his liberal
conduct toward men of different parties, he left it doubtful whether he
was a Conformist or Non-conformist in principle. The dissenters always
considered him as their friend. And as his Lordship and Dr. Samuel
Annesley were cousins, and some of the Non-conformist ministers
generally resided as chaplains in his house, he knew much about the
dissenters, and interested himself greatly on their behalf. He left a
valuable collection of books, which he had procured at great expense, and
which, after the example of the De Puys and Colberts, he intended should
never go out of his family; but it was sold after his death, which took place
564
in 1686. The Countess of Anglesea was so much attached to Dr. Owen,
that sometime before her death, she requested that the Doctor’s widow
allow her to be buried in the same vault with him — that in dying, as well
565
as living, she might testify of her regard toward him.
Lord Willoughby of Parham, distinguished himself greatly as an officer in
the Parliamentary army, at the beginning of the civil war. His father, lord
Lindsay, was killed at the battle of Edge-hill, and himself taken prisoner.
He was made general of the horse under the Earl of Essex. But being
disgusted by the Commons refusing a personal treaty with the king, he
assisted the tumults in the city, by which the Parliament was driven to the
army, and for which he was afterwards impeached.
375
Not choosing to stand a trial, he retired to Holland, where he was made
Vice-Admiral of the fleet fitted out by Charles, then prince of Wales. In
1650, he went out privately to Barbados, where he proclaimed Charles II
and assumed the office of governor. He defended the island for a time
against Cromwell’s fleet, but at last surrendered on condition of being
permitted to return to England and enjoy his estate. He was sent out to be
566
governor of Barbados by Charles in 1666, where he died. The Parham
family appear to have continued dissenters to a very late period. Henry,
Lord Willoughby, who died in 1775 in the 79th year of his age, was buried
in Bunhill fields, the receptacle of the ashes of the dissenters for two
hundred years.
Philip, Lord Wharton, was a Puritan nobleman of considerable note. He
was one of the lay members of the Westminster Assembly, and took a
most active part in supporting the Parliament against the King. For these
services he was created an Earl by the House. He was appointed, with
several others, resident commissioner at Edinburgh, to attend the Scotch
Parliament. He was sent to the Tower for challenging the legality of the
Long Parliament of Charles II. After this, he travelled abroad, carrying
Mr. Howe with him. He seems to have been a decided Non-conformist,
and his house was a refuge for their ministers in the time of persecution.
While attending Dr. Manton’s meeting one time, the place was beset, and
his name taken down. The place was fined forty pounds, and the minister
twenty, which his Lordship paid. Mr. Locke describes him as “an old and
expert Parliament man, of eminent piety and abilities, a great friend to
567
the Protestant religion, and the interest of England.”
376
In a postscript to a letter written from his house to the church in Bury
Street, by Dr. Owen, when he was ill, — the Doctor thus expresses himself
respecting the family: —
“I humbly desire that you would in your prayers remember the family where I am, from whom I
have received and do receive great Christian kindness. I may say as the Apostle said of
Onesiphorus, the Lord give to them, that they may the find mercy of the Lord in that day, for
568
they have often refreshed me in my great distress.”
Also, the Countess of Wharton appears to have been a very excellent
woman, and from the language of Mr. Howe, in the dedication of his
“Thoughtfulness for the future,” she was decidedly a Non-conformist, if
not a member of his church. He speaks of her Ladyship having been
called to serve the Christian interest “in a family in which it had long
flourished; and which it dignified beyond all the splendour that antiquity
569
and secular greatness could confer upon it.”
George Berkely, created Earl of Berkely, in 1679, was a privy councillor in
the reigns of Charles II, James II, and William. He was also Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland for several years. He bestowed a very valuable
library which had been collected by Sir Robert Cooke, on Sion College, for
the use of the city clergy. If we may judge about his religion from a small
work which he published in 1670, “Historical Applications, and
Occasional Meditations upon several subjects,” we must think very
favourably of it. Alluding to this book, and its author, Waller exclaims,
“Bold is the man who dares engage
For piety in such an age.”
377
He was a nobleman of strict virtue and piety, and of such
undistinguishing affability toward men of all ranks and parties, as to
occasion his being exhibited by Wycherly in his “Plain Dealer,” as Lord
570
Plausible.
Sir John Trevor, was a branch of an ancient and noble family in Wales;
and both he and his father were particularly respected by the Protectors,
Oliver and Richard. He married Ruth, daughter of the celebrated
Hampden, and possessed a portion of his patriotism. Charles either
forgot Trevor’s services to the republic, or desired to gain the favour of a
powerful family; for he not only knighted him, but in 1668 sent him as
Ambassador to the Court of France — after his return, he raised him to
his privy council, and made him one of his principal secretaries of state.
His former connexions sufficiently explain his partiality for the Non-
571
conformists. He died of a fever in 1672.
Owen was not only known to several of the leading noblemen, or
members of administration; both the King and the Duke of York paid him
572
some attentions. Being in a very languishing state of health in 1674,
Owen was at Tunbridge Wells when the Duke of York was there. The
Duke sent for him, and had several conversations with him in his tent
about the Dissenters and Conventicles. After his return to London, the
King himself sent for Owen, and conversed two hours with him, assuring
him of his favour and respect, and told him that he might have access to
him whenever he pleased. Charles also made strong professions of his
regard for liberty of conscience, and declared how sensible he was of the
injuries that had been done to Dissenters. As a proof of his good wishes
toward them, he gave the Doctor a thousand guineas to distribute among
those who had suffered most by the late severities.
378
The Doctor thankfully received his Majesty’s generosity, and faithfully
573
applied it to the objects of his bounty. When this came to be known, a
great clamour was raised by the Churchmen, who reported that Owen
and the Dissenters were pensioned to serve the Popish interest. But the
Doctor afterwards replied to this with considerable passion,
“That never any one person in authority, dignity or power, in this nation, nor any one that had
any relation to public affairs, nor any of the Papists, or Protestants ever spoke one word to him
or advised with him about any indulgence or toleration to be granted to Papists, and challenges
all the world to prove the contrary if they can. The persons are sufficiently known of whom they
574
may make their inquiry.”
Notwithstanding this, Burnet asserts that Stillingfleet told him the Court
hired the Dissenters to be silent, and that the greater part of them were
575
so, and were very compliant.
This same year, the Doctor had to sustain a very unexpected attack on his
work on Communion with God, published nearly twenty years before.
This came from the pen of Dr. Sherlock, known as the author of some
works on Providence and Death, which do him more credit than his book
against Owen — though none of them reveal accurate views of the
doctrines of the gospel.
379
His strictures on Owen are entitled, “A Discourse Concerning the
Knowledge of Jesus Christ, and our Union and Communion with him,”
etc. 1674. They are a confused mass of Socinianized Arminianism, in
which the doctrines of imputation and of justification by faith are denied;
and language is employed respecting the person of Christ and his work,
which I will not stain my pages by quoting them. Owen appears to have
considered it one of the pitiful attempts to run him down, and to destroy
the credit of his writings, to which he had for some time been doomed to
submit. He met it in, “A Vindication of some passages in a Discourse
concerning Communion with God, from the exceptions of William
Sherlock, Rector of St. George, Buttolph Lane. pp. 237, 12mo. 1674.” The
work on Communion is so far removed from controversy, that it seems a
wonder that it should have excited it; and as it had been well-received
during the whole period that it had been published, it seems even
stranger. But when a matter for accusation is sought, no human character
or production can be proof against its being found. Quoting some of
Sherlock’s perversions of his words and sentiments, Owen exclaims with
considerable feeling:
“What does this man intend? Does he either not at all understand what I say, or does he not care
what he says himself? What have I done to him? In what have I injured him? How have I
576
provoked him, that he should sacrifice his conscience and reputation to such a revenge?”
In railing and abuse, Sherlock was more than a match for Owen; but in
the lists of theological warfare, he was a very dwarf in the grasp of a giant.
Owen exposes his ignorance, his petulance and vanity, the inconsistency
and absurdity of his statements in such a manner as must have made
him, if he had any sense of shame left, blush that he had ever meddled
with a subject that he so ill understood.
380
The controversy was taken up with great spirit by several others besides
Owen. Robert Ferguson published in a thick octavo, “The Interest of
Reason in Religion, with the import and use of Scripture Metaphors, and
some reflections on Mr. Sherlock’s writings, etc. 1675.” A second attack
on Sherlock came from the pen of Edward Polhill, Esq. “An Answer to the
Discourse of Mr. William Sherlock, etc., 8vo. 1675.” A third publication
on the same side came from Vincent Alsop, the South of the Dissenters,
“Antisozzo, or Sherlocismus enervatus, etc.” This was the first work in
which he called attention to himself. Both by his wit and his talents, on
this and some other occasions, he rendered important service to the
cause of truth. “Speculum Sherlockiantum: or a Looking Glass in which
the admirers of Mr. Sherlock may behold the man,” was supposed to be
the production of Henry Hickman, a minister of learning and
577
considerable controversial talents, who afterwards died in Holland.
“Prodromus, or the character of Mr. Sherlock’s Book,” was the production
of Samuel Rolle, who also wrote “Justification Justified,” in the same
controversy. “A Friendly Debate between Satan and Sherlock,” and a
subsequent defence of it, were written by Thomas Danson, the ejected
minister of Sibton. The object of his treatises was to show that on the
principles of Sherlock, Satan might have the same hope of salvation with
the human race.
381
Sherlock replied to Owen and Ferguson in 1675, but took no notice of his
other opponents. Another clergyman also, Thos. Hotchkis, Rector of
Staunton, intervened in the controversy in, “A Discourse concerning the
Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to us, and our sins to Him, etc.
1675.” In it, he takes up both Dr. Owen and Mr. Ferguson. This author
seems substantially of Mr. Baxter’s sentiments, and states the doctrine of
imputation in several places, with considerable accuracy. With these
publications, the Communion controversy terminated. The subjects
discussed were of great importance, and the zeal with which the debate
was gone into, reveals the interest that was then taken in them. It must
have contributed greatly to the circulation of the work which occasioned
it, and which has long out-lived the tempest of temporary rage, and the
chilling damp of personal detraction. It remains the object of
commendation, while its antagonists are forgotten and unknown.
In 1674 Owen published the second volume of his work on the Hebrews;
and in the same year, the first part of his elaborate work on the Spirit
appeared. It is entitled
“A Discourse concerning the Holy Spirit. In which an account is given of the Spirit’s name,
nature, personality, dispensation, operations and effects. His whole work in the Old and New
Creation is explained; the doctrine concerning it is vindicated from opposition and reproaches.
The nature and necessity also of Gospel holiness; the difference between grace and morality, or a
 Spiritual life to God in Evangelical obedience, and a course of moral virtues, is stated and
declared. Fol. pp. 575.”
382
The plan of this work embraced a number of most important subjects,
either forming part of the direct work of the Spirit, or collaterally related
to 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 considerable
intervals he published the remaining parts of his plan. As it will save
repetitions, and enable us to form a more consistent view of the entire
scheme, I will here introduce all the other branches in the order in which
they were published. The first of them is “The Reason of Faith, or an
answer to that inquiry, Why do we believe the Scripture to be the Word of
God? etc., 8vo. 1677.” This is the first part of his view of the Spirit’s work
in illumination. In the following year the second part of this branch of the
subject came out: “The Causes, Ways, and Means of understanding the
Mind of God, as revealed in his Word; and a declaration of the perspicuity
of the Scriptures with the external means of the interpretation of them.”
8vo. In 1682 came, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, with a brief
inquiry into the nature and use of mental prayer and forms.” 8vo. And in
1693, two posthumous discourses — “On the Work of the Spirit as a
Comforter, and as he is the Author of Spiritual Gifts,” — completed the
design.
These works evidently embrace an extensive and interesting view of this
great department of the Divine administration. As they are filled up with
the ability and copiousness of their author, and are the fruit of his most
matured experience, they constitute the most complete exhibition of the
Scripture doctrine of Spiritual agency and influence, to be found in any
language. Any analysis that I could give would afford a very imperfect
view of the works themselves; nor indeed is this necessary, as they are
better known, either in the originals, or by some useful abridgements,
than most of Owen’s writings. Therefore, all I will attempt is a short
notice of the relative connexion of the several subjects.
383
The first part is properly occupied with an examination of the Divine
nature and personality of the Spirit, and his operations in conversion and
sanctification. The Doctor justly attaches much importance to correct
sentiments on these subjects — for the Deity of Christ, the doctrine of
atonement, and the influence of the Spirit are closely connected, and
constitute the leading truths of the Revelation of the Gospel. If the Spirit
is not God, he cannot be the author of those effects which are ascribed to
him; and should not be the object of acknowledgement and supplication.
On the other hand, if the corruption of human nature is as extensive and
inveterate as the Scriptures represent it, then without the provision of an
Almighty agent, whose influence, when put forth, must prove irresistible,
we could have no security for receiving the atonement and applying the
grace of Christ in the destruction of sin. Owen examines all these
subjects, with every plausible objection to them, with great carefulness,
and at great length. The whole strength of his theological vigour is put
forth, now arrived at its highest maturity; scarcely anything is left which
we could desire to be said, either for illustration or defence.
From the Spirit and his influence, he is naturally led to treat the Spirit’s
Revelation in the Scriptures; the kind of evidence on which we believe
them to be the word of God; and the consistency of using means for
understanding them, with dependence on spiritual illumination; together
with the kind of means we are required to employ. This branch of the
subject involves some of the finest and most abstruse points of
metaphysical and revealed theology.
384-
To say that Owen has removed every difficulty, and disentangled all the
intricacies of a subject whose difficulties and obscurities arise — partly
from the limited capacities of the human constitution; partly from the
limits which God has prescribed to himself in his communications to
men; and partly from the perverse reasonings of philosophical divines —
would be saying too much. He has, however, done the most that man can
do. He has exhibited the doctrine of Scripture fairly and fully, and
appealed to general experience for the truth of his representations. On
578
the one hand, Owen was no enthusiast: he expected no illapses, or new
revelations, or extraordinary intimations of the will of God. On the other
hand, he knows that means are not powers, just as laws are not energies
— they are merely the media through which a superior influence is
exerted, and which is in all cases essentially necessary, to give them a
beneficial result. The truth or fact is easily established; but the nature of
that mysterious link which connects Divine influence with human duty, is
perhaps not for us to explain.
Owen is naturally led in the last part of his undertaking, to the office of
the Spirit in exciting holy desires, forming religious habits, imparting
consolation, and building up the people of God. Here there is much
practical instruction, combined with a valuable explanation of the various
parts of the heavenly economy. Speaking of the whole work, Nathaniel
Mather, who writes the preface to the posthumous volume, says with
much justness and felicity,
“They are not the crude, and hasty, and untimely abortions of a self-full, distempered spirit,
much less the boilings over of inward corruption and rottenness, put into a fermentation; but
the mature, sedate, and seasonable issues of a rich magazine of learning, well-digested with
great exactness of judgment.
385
There is in them a great light reflected on, as well as derived from the Holy Scriptures, those
inexhaustible fountains of light in sacred things. They are not filled with vain impertinent
janglings, nor with a noise of multiplied useless distinctions; nor with novel and uncouth terms,
579
foreign to the things of God, as the manner of some is ad nauseam usque. But there is in
them, a happy and rare conjunction of solidity, clearness, and heart-searching spirituality.”
This work was not undertaken merely for the sake of writing a book on
this important subject; it was called for by the circumstances of the times
in which the Doctor lived. During the period of England’s convulsions,
many extravagances and abuses prevailed; and on no subject more than
on that of Spiritual influence. The wildest doctrines and speculations
were sported in the most fearless manner, as if men had been resolved to
outvie one another in outrages on Scripture doctrine and common sense.
Prophecies and visions, dreams and voices from heaven were publicly
reported, to the astonishment of the multitude, the amusement of the
scoffer, and the grief of the sober and enlightened Christian. New sects
were springing up every day, each more fanatical or erroneous than the
former. And though in general they had but an ephemeral existence, they
produced, while they lasted, injurious effects on true religion, and left
very baneful consequences behind them. The violent excitement of this
period could not be of lasting duration. But after its strength was spent,
its influence might be traced on three distinct classes of persons, whose
580
existence, in one form or another, remains to the present day.
386
The pretenders to high illumination and spiritual enjoyment,
independently of the Scriptures and of other external means, settled
under the general denomination of Quakers. The incongruous atoms
which had floated about under different names and various forms, were
at length digested into a body combining the elements of fanaticism,
philosophical calmness, and moral propriety, in a very singular degree.
From carrying the doctrine of invisible and spiritual agency too far, the
extreme of denying it altogether was easily gotten to. Hostility to reason
as a gift of God, the means of examining the evidence of his revelation,
and of ascertaining its meaning, led naturally to its deification as the sole
guide and instructor of man. The abettors of these views found an asylum
in the cold regions of Socinianism. The Spirit was treated by the former
581
class as a kind of familiar, and his written communications were
despised. His very existence was denied by the latter, and his operations
were blasphemed. A third class, forming no distinct sect or known by any
specific designation (though more numerous than both the former), also
arose out of the circumstances and changes of the times. It was a class
which pretended respect for religion, and hatred of enthusiasm. But
under the latter term of reproach, were included some of the most sacred
truths of Christianity, and its most important influence on the human
character. Such persons did not deny the existence of the Spirit in words;
but His operations in converting, sanctifying, and comforting a sinner,
were the objects of their unqualified and never-ending hostility. The
follies of the former period and of the few fanatics who still survived it,
were exaggerated; and they were charged against the many who
maintained the proprieties and doctrines of Christianity. The Court of
Charles took the lead in this refined system of irreligion.
387
Nothing was heard of but philosophy and reason — not as opposed to
rant and nonsense; but as opposed to Scripture and scriptural piety.
Genuine religion was run down under the pretence of laughing at
fanaticism, and decrying sectarian folly. Fawning courtiers encouraged
the wanton levity of Charles; and worldly ecclesiastics, and hungry poets,
furnished his repasts, and regaled the depraved propensities of the
admiring and deluded crowd.
Such was the state of the country when Owen formed the plan of his work
on the Spirit. The objects which it embraced, included the errors and
vices of the various classes now mentioned. It was designed to furnish
information to the ignorant but well-meaning enthusiast; as an antidote
to the wild sportings of deluded deceivers; as a defence of the Spirit’s
character and agency against Socinians; as a vindication of the true
doctrine of Spiritual influence against the increasing tide of Court
infidelity and clerical Arminianism; and as a combined and harmonious
view of the truths connected with the main subject of discussion. The
work was loudly demanded. The qualifications of the undertaker were
beyond any then possessed by “his equals in his own nation.” And besides
the success which attended it at the time, it has ever since continued to
render a most important service to the cause of pure and undefiled
religion.
It would have been too much to expect that this work would pass without
opposition. Although it professedly wages war with no one, it in fact
opposes many. Fanatics and Socinians, indifferent to its reasonings for
opposite reasons — the former believing too much, the latter too little —
allowed it to proceed unnoticed. But the High Church party felt
differently.
388
William Clagett, “Preacher to the Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn, and
one of his Majesty’s Chaplains in ordinary,” published “A Discourse
concerning the Operations of the Holy Spirit; with a confutation of some
part of Dr. Owen’s book on that subject.” 1678. The object of this work is
to show that Owen is very ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, a bungler
in reasoning, and that his views of the natural wickedness of man, and of
the power of God in converting him, are much too strong! The sentiments
of Clagett are a confused mixture of Pelagian Arminianism, which
distinguished the body of the English clergy in the days of Charles II. And
so far as they have any fixed opinions, it seems to be their prevailing
creed still.
On this work of Clagett, Mr. John Humfrey (who was but a muddy writer
himself) made some observations in his “Peaceable Disquisitions.” He
complained of the uncivil manner in which Dr. Owen had been treated by
his opponent. This led Clagett to publish a second volume of his work, in
which he proceeds in his attack on Owen, and harshly criticizes
Humfrey’s attack on himself. He originally designed that his work should
extend to three parts. At the end of the second, he tells Dr. Owen,
“It remains only to show you that the ancients are not for your turn [the Doctor having quoted
them occasionally in the margin of his work]; which, through the blessing of God, I intend to do
in another part of this discourse, which shall contain a history of their judgments on these
582
points.”
The author had prepared this volume for the press, but it happened that
the manuscript was lodged with a friend of his, whose house was burned,
583
and the book perished in the flames.
389
An abridgement of the two first parts was published in 1719 by Henry
Stebbinor; but neither the original nor the abridgement were ever much
known. Clagett himself was a respectable man, and one of those whom
Bishop Burnet speaks of as an honour both to the church and to the age
in which they lived. But he certainly did not understand the subject on
which he undertook to confute Dr. Owen, to whom he was very far
inferior as a theologian.
The Doctor anticipated opposition to his work, both from his past
experience of the mood of the times, and from what he knew of man’s
natural dislike for many of the doctrines he had endeavoured to defend
and illustrate. In the preface to the Reason of Faith, he says,
“Where I differ in the explanation of anything belonging to the subject, from the conceptions of
other men, I have candidly examined such opinions, and the arguments by which they are
confirmed, without straining the words, cavilling at the expressions, or reflecting on the persons
of the authors. And though I have been otherwise dealt with by many, and do not know how
soon I may be dealt with again, I hereby free the persons of such temperaments from all fear of
any reply from me, or the least notice of what they will be pleased to write or say. I consider such
writing to be the same as those multiplied false reports which some have raised concerning me,
most of which are so ridiculous and foolish, so alien from my principles, practice, and course of
life, that I cannot help but wonder how any persons pretending to gravity and sobriety, are not
sensible how their credulity is abused in the hearing and repeating of them.”
390
In pursuance of this resolution, and considering that the work of Clagett
is in some respects of this nature, he treated it with entire silence. At
times it is necessary to defend the truth to the last; at other times that
silence is the best reply that can be made.
Asseveration blust’ring in your face
584
Makes contradiction such a hopeless case.
When the object of a controvertist is evidently to hit blots in his
opponent’s character, or to quibble with his words and reasonings for the
sake of obtaining a pitiful and unworthy triumph, or of exciting public
odium against the thing contended for — it is better to leave such a one to
Him that judges righteously, 1Pet 2.23 and to whom it belongs to avenge
His own cause, than by employing similar measures to gain a victory at
the expense of principle and godliness.
The next work which Dr. Owen produced is, “The Nature and Punishment
of Apostasy, declared in an Exposition of Hebrews 6.4-6. 8vo. pp. 612.
1676.” In the preface to this work, he complains most piteously of the
state into which the Christian profession had sunk — that the pristine
glory of the Christian church was gone, and that the great body of those
who assumed the name of Christ had degenerated into cold worldly
professors, destitute of the power, and many of them even of the form of
godliness.2Tim 3.5 The work itself is only an enlarged Exposition of that
part of the epistle to the Hebrews which particularly treats apostasy, and
on which the Doctor was then labouring. He thought the circumstances of
the times required, and the importance of the subject justified, a separate
treatise. He examines at considerable length, and with great acuteness,
the secret causes or reasons for the apostasy of churches and professors.
And he points out the means of prevention or cure, in such a manner as is
calculated to render the work exceedingly useful.
391
It cannot be ascertained whether the awful evil which is the subject of this
treatise, was more common in the days of Owen than our own. But it
must be admitted by all who pay any attention to what passes around
them, that of the number who set out in early life with a tolerably fair
profession, a very large proportion make shipwreck of it before they die.
This abandonment of the truth is sometimes sudden and flagrant; but in
most cases it is gradual and almost imperceptible till the last. It is the
result of latent and unperceived causes which operate in secret long
before their effects are externally visible. A Christian profession is so
easily taken up, the influence of Divine truth and invisible things is so
partial, and the power of inward corruption and outward temptation is so
strong, that much as we deplore it, we can scarcely wonder that many
become weary of the ways of righteousness, and turn again to folly. It is a
comfort, however, to know that the “foundation of God stands sure,” 2Tim
2.19 that those who go out from the people of God were never actually of

them; 1Joh 2.19 and that while all are called not to be high-minded, but to
fear, “the Lord knows those who are his,” 2Tim 2.19 and will perfect in the
day of Christ that which he has here begun. Phi 1.6 Those who desire to
examine the subject fully, will find much valuable instruction and
warning in this work of Owen.
At precisely what time the Doctor lost his first wife, I have been unable to
fully ascertain. In a letter written from Stadham, unfortunately without a
date, he speaks of her as much revived, so that he did not despair of her
585
recovery; but it is not improbable that he was disappointed in this.
392
How long he remained a widower is uncertain. But as his numerous
family had all been taken away, and age and infirmities were now fast
coming on him, a second connexion seems to have been indispensable to
586
his comfort. In June, 1677, he married the widow of Thomas D’Oyley,
Esq., brother to Sir John D’Oyley of Chiselhampton near Stadham. Her
name was Michel, the daughter of a family of distinction at Kingston
Russel, Dorsetshire. She was eminent for her good sense, piety, and
affectionate disposition, and she brought the Doctor a considerable
fortune which, with his own estate, and other property, enabled him to
keep his carriage and country house at Ealing in Middlesex, where he
mostly lived during the latter years of his life. This lady survived the
Doctor many years. Her funeral sermon was preached by Dr. Watts on
the 30th of January, 1704. Mr. Gilbert, who probably knew her well, gives
in the following lines from one of his Epitaphs on the Doctor. The
character of the second, as he had given that of the first wife, was already
quoted.
“Dorothea vice, non ortu, opibus, officiusve, secunda
Laboribus, Morbis, senioque ipso elanguenti
587
Indulgentissimam etiam se nutricem praestitit.”


 CHAPTER XII.
Owen’s assistants — Ferguson — Shields — Loeffs—Angier—Clarkson — Intercourse between
Owen and Bishop Barlow respecting Bunyan — Owen publishes on Justification — On the Person
of Christ — The Church of Rome no safe Guide — Death of Goodwin — Owen publishes on Union
among Protestants — Controversy with Stillingfleet — Owen’s Vindication of the Non-conformists
— Publications of others on the same side — Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separation —
Owen’s Answer — Other Answers — Unfair conduct of Stillingfleet — Owen publishes on
Evangelical Churches — His humble testimony — On Spiritual-mindedness — Account of the
Protestant Religion — Meditations on the Glory of Christ — His declining health — Last sickness
— Letter to Fleetwood — Death—Funeral — Clarkson’s Sermon on the occasion — Last Will — Sale
of his Library — Monument and Inscription — Portraits of Owen — General view of his character
as a Christian — A Minister — A Writer — Conclusion.
During the latter part of his life, Dr. Owen generally had some person
assisting him in his public labours, and who also acted occasionally as his
588
amanuensis. Among these we may notice Robert Ferguson, a native of
Scotland, who possessed a living in Kent before the Restoration. After his
ejectment, he taught University learning at Islington, and for some time
assisted Owen. He afterwards involved himself deeply in political
intrigues, by which he brought himself into danger, and needed to flee to
Holland. He took an active part in promoting the Revolution, and
returned to England with William, by whom he was liberally rewarded.
After this, he turned Jacobite, and spent his life in continual agitation. He
died at an advanced age in 1714, poor and despised, both by his brethren
and the world. He wrote various religious works of some merit, and
several political treatises, among which were the Duke of Monmouth’s
589
manifesto, on his landing at Lynne, in 1685.
394
Another of the Doctor’s assistants, was Mr. Alexander Shields, a
Scotsman also, and a man who suffered much in the cause of God and his
country. He is well known in Scotland as the author of some works which
were long popular, and contributed much to promote the antipathy of the
590
Scotch to episcopacy — “The Hind let loose.” “Mr. Renwick’s Life, and
Vindication of his dying Testimony.” “A Vindication of the solemn League
and Covenant,” etc. He became minister of St. Andrews after the
Revolution, and was much esteemed by King William. He was appointed
to go to Darien as minister of the Scotch colony there; but as the
expedition failed from lack of management and sufficient support, he
591
went to Jamaica, where he died.
Isaac Loeffs or Loafs acted in the same capacity to Owen for a time. He
was M. A. and Fellow of Peter House, Cambridge. He was ejected from
the Rectory of Shenley in Hertfordshire, after which he came to London.
From the Church books of Bury-street, it appears that he was pastor for a
time, either with Dr. Owen, or Mr. Clarkson, as his name stands among
the list of Pastors, after the latter. He was a respectable man, and author
of a work in 8vo., “The Soul’s ascension in a state of separation.” He died
592
in July, 1689.
395
Mr. Samuel Angier, who had been a student at Christ Church, where he
continued till the Act of Uniformity, also assisted Dr. Owen; and lived in
the house with him. He was exposed to frequent trouble on account of his
preaching. Warrants were often taken out against him, and in 1680 he
was excommunicated at Stockport Church. He was an excellent scholar, a
judicious and lively preacher, an eminent Christian, and zealous of good
works. He became pastor of one of the oldest Independent Churches in
England, at Duckenfield in Cheshire, where he died in 1713 at the age of
593
seventy-five.
His last assistant, as pastor and successor in the Church of Bury-street,
was David Clarkson. This excellent man had been educated at Cambridge,
and was a fellow of Clarehall, where he had under his charge the
celebrated Archbishop Tillotson; he maintained the highest respect for
594
his pupil as long as he lived. He was, says Baxter, a divine of
extraordinary worth for solid judgment, healing moderate principles,
acquaintance with the fathers, great ministerial abilities, and a godly
upright life. Birch, though a High Churchman, speaks of him with equal
respect, “He was eminent for his writings, particularly, ‘No evidence of
diocesan Episcopacy in the primitive times,’ in answer to Dr. Stillingfleet;
595
another on the same subject was printed after his death.”
396
596
He was ejected from the living of Mortlake, in Surry, in 1662, after
which he lived in concealment for some time. In July 1682, Clarkson was
chosen co-pastor with Dr. Owen, and succeeded to the entire charge on
his death. Such a colleague must have been a great comfort to the Doctor,
who speaks of him in some of his letters with great respect and affection.
He did not, however, survive him long, as he died suddenly on the 14th of
June, 1686, at the age of sixty-five. I cannot resist quoting part of the
conclusion of the beautiful sermon which Dr. Bates preached on the
597
occasion of his death.
“He was a man of sincere godliness, and true holiness, which are the divine part of a minister,
without which all other accomplishments are not likely to be effectual for the great end of the
ministry, which is to translate sinners from the kingdom of darkness, into the kingdom of God’s
dear Son. Conversion is the special work of divine grace, and it is most likely that God will use
those as instruments in that blessed work, who are dear to him, and earnestly desire to glorify
him. God ordinarily works in spiritual things as in natural: for as in the production of a living
creature, besides the influence of the universal cause, there must be an immediate agent of the
same kind for forming it; so the Divine wisdom orders it, that holy and heavenly ministers
should be the instruments of making others so.
397
Let a minister be master of natural and artificial eloquence, let him understand all the secret
springs of persuasion, let him be furnished with learning and knowledge, yet he is not likely to
succeed in his employment, without sanctifying grace. That gives him a tender sense of the
worth of souls; that warms his heart with ardent requests to God, and with zealous affections
toward men for their salvation. Besides, an unholy minister unravels in his actions his most
accurate discourses in the pulpit; and like a carbuncle that seems animated with the light and
heat of fire but is a cold dead stone; so, though he may urge men’s duties on them with apparent
earnestness, he is cold and careless in his own practice, and his example enervates the efficacy of
his sermons. But this servant of God was a real saint, a living spring of grace in his heart,
diffused in the veins of his conversation. His life was a silent repetition of his holy discourses.
While opportunity lasted, with alacrity, and diligence, and constant resolution, he served his
blessed Master, till his languishing distempers prevailed upon him. But then the best Physician
provided him the true remedy of patience. His death was unexpected; yet, as he declared, it was
no surprise to him; for he was entirely resigned to the will of God. He desired to live no longer
than he could be serviceable. His soul was supported with the blessed hope of enjoying God in
glory. With holy Simeon, he had Christ in his arms, and departed in peace to the salvation of
598
God above.”
398
About this time, some correspondence took place between Owen and his
old tutor Barlow, now advanced to the Episcopate, respecting John
Bunyan. This excellent man, more celebrated than most of the persons
who ever wore a mitre, had suffered long and grievously from
imprisonment, by which the servant had been bound, but not the word of
the Lord. During his confinement, he produced those works which have
immortalised his name, and diffused most extensively the knowledge of
Christ. By the existing law, if any two persons went to the bishop of the
diocese, and offered a cautionary bond that the person would conform in
half a year, the bishop might release him on bond. A friend of Bunyan
requested Dr. Owen to give him a letter of introduction to the bishop on
his behalf, which he readily granted. When the letter was delivered to
Barlow, he told the bearer that,
“he had a particular regard for Dr. Owen, and would deny him nothing he could legally do; and
that he would be willing even to stretch a little to serve him. But this, he said, is a new thing. I
must therefore take a little time to consider it; and if in my power, I will readily do it.”
Being waited upon about a fortnight for his answer, Barlow replied that
he was informed he might do it; but as the law provided, in case the
bishop refused, application should be made to the Lord Chancellor, who
thereupon would issue an order to the Bishop to take the bond and
release the prisoner. “Now, as it is a critical time,” he said, “and I have
many enemies, I desire that you would move the Chancellor in the case,
and upon his order, I will do it.” He was told this would be an expensive
mode of proceeding, that the man was very poor, and that as he could
legally release him without this order, it was hoped he would remember
his promise to Dr. Owen. But he would consent on no other terms —
599
which at length were complied with — and Bunyan was set at liberty.
399
I give this anecdote as it occurs in Asty’s memoirs of Owen, although I
find some difficulty in reconciling it with the chronology of the period.
Bunyan was imprisoned in 1660, and is said to have been kept in durance
about twelve years and a half. He must consequently have been released
in 1673. But Barlow was not made a Bishop till 1675. Whether Bunyan’s
first term of imprisonment was divided, or whether he was confined a
second time after the first twelve years, I cannot ascertain; but this is the
only mode of obviating the difficulty. There must have been some
foundation for the reported intervention of Owen and Bishop Barlow, as
all the memoirs of Bunyan, as well as those of Owen, take note of it. It is
said that Owen was in the practice of frequently hearing Bunyan preach
when he came to London; which led Charles II to express his
astonishment that a man of the Doctor’s learning could hear a tinker
preach. To which Owen replied, “Had I the tinker’s abilities, please your
600
Majesty, I would most gladly relinquish my learning.” Bunyan appears
to have been a very popular preacher, and must have had something very
attractive in his address. In the middle of winter, he would sometimes
have more than twelve hundred hearers before seven o’clock in the
morning on a week-day. And when he visited the metropolis, one day’s
notice of his preaching would bring many more than the place of worship
601
could contain. I do not know that anything of the same nature
occurred again till the days of Whitfield and Wesley.
400
Barlow’s conduct in the affair of Bunyan did not altogether break up the
intercourse between him and Owen. Being together afterwards, the
Bishop asked the Doctor what he could object to their liturgical worship,
which he could not answer? Owen replied, “Means appointed by men for
attaining an end of Christ — exclusive of the means appointed by Christ
himself for attaining that end — is unlawful. And the worship of the
liturgy with all its ceremonies, is a means appointed for an end of Christ
— the edification of his church — exclusive of the means appointed by
Christ for that purpose. Therefore, it is unlawful.” He urged the argument
from Eph. 4.8-12. “He gave gifts to men for the perfecting of the saints,
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” The
Bishop answered, “Their ministers might preach and pray.” The Doctor
said, “the administration of the sacraments is one principal means of the
edification of the church. But the use of the liturgy is exclusive of the
exercise of all gifts in the administration of the Lord’s Supper.” The
Bishop paused — “Don’t answer suddenly,” said the Doctor, “but think
602
about it till our next meeting,” which never took place. Liturgies were
not introduced into the church till, from its corruption by secular
influence, it began to be served by persons who could not lead its
devotions. The great body of the English clergy after the Reformation
were in this condition. They were unfit to preach, and therefore the state
provided them with sermons; they were unable to pray, and therefore it
provided them with a service book. Suspicion of their capacity, or
consciousness of their unfitness, is implied in that very provision which
the Church has made for her clergy, and in which, notwithstanding, they
profess to glory!
401
The latter years of Owen’s life were mostly devoted to writing, and to the
labours of the ministry as he was able to perform them. He appears to
have been frequently laid aside from his public work. But every moment
of his private retirement must have been employed, because during this
period, some of his most elaborate performances were published or
prepared for the press. It is proper to now direct our attention to these, in
their order.
In 1677 he published, “The Reason of Faith,” of which we have spoken in
our account of his work on the Spirit. This year also appeared, “The
Doctrine of Justification by Faith, through the imputation of the
righteousness of Christ, explained, confirmed, and vindicated.” 4to. pp.
560. The subject of this volume embraces the grand truth of the Gospel —
what Luther called “Articulus stantis et cadentis Ecclesiae” — the great
evidence of a standing or falling Church. From the days of Paul, it has
met with opposition not only from the world, but from men professing
godliness, who have not understood it. In proportion to how well this
doctrine is known and believed, the religion of an individual will be
comfortable to himself, and acceptable to God. And from the degree of
clearness and decision with which it is preached, we may infer the degree
in which true religion flourishes in any community. Owen had studied the
subject long and profoundly. The doctrine was dear to his own heart, as
he derived from it all his comfort as a sinner; and it constituted the
favourite theme of his public labours. He had examined many
controversial books on the subject, and attended to the innumerable
scholastic and metaphysical arguments by which it had either been
attacked or defended. He derived little satisfaction from these. He
considered it a doctrine that is not at all suited to a speculative state of
mind.
402
“But where any persons are made sensible of their apostasy from God, of the evil of their natures
and lives, with the dreadful consequences that attend it in the wrath of God, and eternal
punishment due to sin, they cannot judge themselves more concerned in anything, than in the
knowledge of the Divine way of deliverance from this condition.”
Entirely for the sake of such persons, he investigates the Divine revelation
on this subject, and he endeavours to ascertain “how the conscience of a
distressed sinner may obtain assured peace with God, through our Lord
Jesus Christ.”
To such believers, and to them alone, will this doctrine appear to be of
importance. When engaged in the serious inquiry, “What must we do to
be saved?” everything that explains the nature, certainty, and way of
deliverance will be considered of unspeakable moment. In prosecuting
his investigation, the Doctor does not allow himself to wander through
the mazes and contradictions of human opinion. He constantly keeps in
view the character of God as a Judge and Lawgiver, the actual condition
of man as a sinner, and the glorious provision made by the plan of mercy
for securing the honour and harmony of the Divine perfections, and
extending salvation to guilty, helpless rebels. He examines the nature and
use of faith — the import of the terms justification, imputed
righteousness, and imputation of sin to Christ. He points out the
difference between personal and imputed righteousness; he illustrates a
number of passages of Scripture in which the subject is treated, and
refutes the objections against his views. He maintains the consistency of
the doctrine with living soberly, righteously, and godly in the world; and
shows there is a perfect agreement between Paul and James, as they are
treating the subject under different aspects.
403
The 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 to
reduce the subject within the narrowest limits possible. An anxious
inquirer is in danger of losing himself in the multitude of his words, and
the variety and prolixity of his discussions. But Owen could more easily
expand than contract, and the present volume is much fitter for an
established Christian who knows how “to distinguish things that differ,”
than for a bewildered, distressed sinner, who wishes a simple answer to
the question, “How may I be just before God?”
The principal works of Owen, indeed, are to be considered as so many
Bodies or Systems of Divinity, in which one leading principle is placed in
the centre, and all the others are arranged round it — establishing its
truth, illustrating its importance, and exhibiting its influence on them,
and their influence on it. This remark applies to his work on
Perseverance — his Vindicias — the Person of Christ — and the Spirit, —
as well as to the present work. In this respect, they are very valuable, as
they contain a more expanded illustration of the magnitude and relative
connexions of the errant points in the Revelation of Heaven which they
treat, than almost any other human productions. While this plan of
discussion has important advantages, it is also attended with various
inconveniences. It is unfavourable to that simplicity with which the Bible
states all its doctrines, and with which it is of importance that they ever
be viewed. It gives Divine truth too much the appearance of artificial or
systematic arrangement. By the very terms it employs, it exposes it to
opposition, and oppresses it with explanations that impede rather than
further its progress.
404
Few points in theology have been made more mysterious and apparently
inexplicable than those of imputation and justification. Perhaps, if we
could divest them of the embarrassments of theoretical speculation, they
would appear in a different light. I apprehend that the imputation of guilt
and of righteousness, in the Scripture use of these phrases, amounts
chiefly to a transfer — not of character or deserving, but of their effects
or consequences — either in the way of enjoyment, or of suffering.
Righteousness is imputed, or reckoned to us, just as sin was imputed to
Christ. On our account, though without sin, he was treated as a sinner.
On his account, though sinners, we are treated as righteous. His
sufferings were the evidences of the imputation of our guilt — our
enjoyment of pardon, acceptance, and eternal life, are the evidences of
the imputation of his righteousness to us. That is, it is entirely for his
sake, and on account of his work, that we receive them. By voluntary
engagement, he became subject to the one; and by faith we partake of the
other.
Justification is another expression for the same thing: for, according to
Psalm 32.1-2, quoted in Rom. 4.1-8. the justification of a sinner — the
imputation of righteousness, — the non-imputation of sin — and the
forgiveness, or covering over of transgression — are all tantamount
expressions; they all convey substantially the same idea.
Sanctification is a change of character; justification a change of state, or
condition. There is no declaration of innocence — no transfer of desert —
no communication of personal merit — no bestowment of right — but an
alteration of the relative situation of God and the sinner in their views
and treatment of one another. As soon as a sinner believes the testimony
of God concerning Christ’s work, there is a deliverance from the
displeasure of God, and from all the penal consequences of his
transgressions; he obtains the enjoyment of positive happiness or favour
from above, and the hope of eternal life.
405
This is God’s revealed method of treating the ungodly who believe. On
their part, there is a ceasing to look on God as an enemy — the love of his
revealed and gracious character — an aversion to sin — and a readiness to
obey Divine authority. The sinner is condemned in law, and found guilty
by the judge. But he is forgiven and restored to favour by the gracious act
of the Sovereign, in consideration of the glorious character and mediation
of his Son. The continuance of this treatment, or the perpetuation of this
state, is secured by the particular provisions of the covenant of mercy.
And it constitutes that justification which commences with the saving
belief of the gospel, and will at last be declared before the august
assembly of the universe — when the solemn sentence of acquittal will be
pronounced from the Throne of Mercy, upon the multitude of the
redeemed.
The following paragraph from the work now under consideration,
contains almost everything of importance on the subject. And as far as it
goes, it agrees with the sentiments expressed above:
“Everything contained in Scripture concerning justification is proposed under a judicial scheme,
or a forensic trial and sentence.
1. A judgment is supposed in it, concerning which the Psalmist prays that it may not proceed
on the terms of law, Psa 143.2.
2. The Judge is God himself, Isa 1.7, 8; Rom 8.33.
3. The tribunal on which he sits is the throne of Grace, Heb 4.16.
4. A guilty person. This is the sinner, who is upodikov tw qeov — so guilty of sin as to be liable
to the judgment of God, Rom 3.19; 1.32
5. Accusers are ready to propose and promote the charge against the guilty person — the Law,
Conscience, and Satan; Joh 5.45. Rom 2.15; Rev 12.10.
406
6. The charge is admitted and drawn up into a handwriting, in the form of Law, and it is laid
before the tribunal of God, in bar to the deliverance of the offender, Col 2.14.
7. A plea is prepared in the Gospel for the guilty person; and this is grace, through the blood of
Christ, — the atonement made by the Surety of the covenant, Rom 3.23-25; Eph 1.7.
8. The sinner enters this plea, renouncing all other apologies and defences whatsoever, Psa
130.2, 3; Rom 5.11, 19; 8.1, 3; 1Joh 1.7, etc. There is no other plea before God; and the one
who knows God, and knows himself, will not provide or trust any other.
9. To make this plea effectual, we have an Advocate with the Father, who pleads his own
propitiation for us, 1Joh 2.2.
10. The sentence pronounced on this is absolution, on account of the ransom, blood, or
sacrifice of Christ; with acceptance into favour, as persons approved by God — Job 33.24;
603
Psa 32.1, 2; Rom 8.33, 34; Gal 3.13, 14.”
Owen proves successfully that the object of that faith by which we are
justified, is not Divine truth in general, to which an assent is given; and it
is not the belief that our sins in particular are pardoned, which is no part
of the testimony of God; but “the Lord Jesus Christ himself, as the
ordinance of God in his work of mediation for the salvation of lost
sinners, and as to that end proposed in the promise (testimony) of the
604
gospel.” It is just believing, on God’s authority, that Jesus is the all-
sufficient and appointed Saviour of sinners. The long chapter which
follows this, on the nature of justifying faith, is unnecessary, and more
calculated to perplex than enlighten. His definition is clumsy and
incorrect. The apostles never entered into such definitions or discussions
407
For, after pointing out the proper object of faith, explaining the ground
on which it is the duty of men to believe on Christ, and its genuine effects,
what use is there in endless disputes about the nature of the act of
believing? Why not also discuss the nature of understanding, willing,
seeing, hoping, etc.? Such speculations may belong to the science of
metaphysics, or pneumatology, but they have no relation to the doctrine
of Christ. They only confound the simple, and bewilder the inquirer. Faith
is connected with justification, because it is by God’s testimony that we
are made acquainted with the character and work of Christ; and it is only
by faith that a testimony can be received. Salvation is through faith,
merely as faith is opposed to works and to merit of every kind. “It is of
faith, that it might be by grace, or favour.” Paul answers in one sentence,
what the greater part of this thick quarto is engaged in ascertaining.
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.” This
declaration, without note or comment, conveyed so distinct and
satisfactory an idea to the mind of the anxious inquirer, that it at once
allayed all his fears and perplexities, and filled him with unspeakable joy.
We do not see why it should require more explanation to us than to the
Philippian jailor; or being received, why it should not produce the same
605
effects.
408
A feeble reply was attempted to this work by a clergyman named
Hotchkis, who had formerly attacked some things on the same subject, in
Owen’s work on Communion. The Doctor threw out a few remarks in the
course of the discussion on Justification, on Hotchkis’ seemingly willful
perversions of his words and sentiments. But he took no notice of the
second attack, which does not seem to have deserved much attention.
John Humfrey also harshly criticized some parts of it. But he says, “the
Doctor, in presence of Sir Charles Wolsley, declared that he could bear
with him in the difference; and though one chapter of the ‘Peaceable
Disquisition’ is professedly against the Doctor, he never took offence or
606
offered any vindication.” Humfrey was nearly of Baxter’s sentiments
on the subject of Justification. The same remark applies to Sir Charles
Wolsley, who speaks of Owen’s work on Justification as written in reply
 607
to one of his. This is his “Justification Evangelical: or a plain impartial
account of God’s method in Justifying a sinner.” 1677. The first part of
this small work, which treats justification and imputation, is on the whole
very excellent; but in the latter part of it, he speaks very improperly on
the subject of faith, and on justification by performing the conditions of
the gospel. Sir Charles appears to have been a pious and well-informed
man, who took a deep interest in the state of religion, and in the
discussions respecting it, which then agitated the country.
409
Besides this work, Wolsey wrote several others: — “The
Unreasonableness of Atheism.” 1669. “The Reasonableness of Scripture
Belief.” 1672, which is a very excellent book, and frequently quoted by
Professor Hallyburton in his work on Deism. And “The Mount of Spirits,”
1691, of which I know nothing. The worthy Baronet appears to have taken
an active part in the civil wars on the side of the Parliament, and
afterwards in the affairs of the commonwealth; but he was,
notwithstanding, often employed by the Royal party after the
608
Restoration.
In 1679, appeared Owen’s “Christologia: or a Declaration of the Glorious
Mystery of the Person of Christ, God and Man; with the infinite wisdom,
love, and power of God, in the contrivance and constitution of it. As also,
of the grounds and reasons of his Incarnation, the nature of his Ministry
in Heaven, the present state of the Church above thereon, and the use of
his Person in religion. With an account and vindication of the honour,
worship, faith, love, and obedience due unto him from the Church.” 4to.
The preface to this work, as usual, contains some historical notices of the
controversies respecting the person of Christ, which had agitated the
church, and of the means which the friends of truth had employed in its
defence.
410
Speaking of the Councils, which were called in the fourth and following
centuries, for the purpose of declaring the orthodox doctrines, and of
healing divisions, he says,
“They proved the most pernicious engines for the corruption of the faith, worship, and manners
of the church. Indeed, from the beginning, they were so far from being the only way of
preserving the truth, that it was almost constantly prejudiced by the addition of their authority
for confirming it. Nor was there any one of them, in which the mystery of iniquity did not work
 towards laying some rubbish in the foundation of that fatal apostasy which afterwards openly
609
ensued.”
The entire treatise is founded on our Lord’s declaration to Peter,
respecting the foundation of the church, Mat. 16.16. The Doctor conceives
this declaration to contain three important truths — that the person of
Christ, the Son of the living God, as vested with his offices, is the
foundation of the church — that the power and policy of hell will ever be
exerted against the relation of the church to this foundation — but the
church, built on this Rock, shall never be disjoined from it, nor destroyed.
The work is accordingly devoted to the illustration of these and the other
topics noted in the title, which I have given at length.
The volume contains many important, and some beautiful passages, both
in the direct discussion of the subject, and incidentally introduced. His
views of the mediation and glory of Christ in Heaven, are uncommonly
elevated. Losing sight of the refinements of a technical theology, he
speaks out the feelings of his soul, as one whose faith and hope had long
been fixed on that which is within the vail, and whose heart burned with
love for that Redeemer whose presence and glory fills the holiest of all.
The eternal life, and unlimited power of Jesus secure the existence of the
church, and encourage the most perfect confidence in its future triumphs.
411
Amidst all its declensions and tribulations, its perpetuity has never been
endangered; and whatever may be the scenes of its future condition, we
know that full provision is made in the scheme of revealed love, for the
universality of its establishment on earth, and the eternity of its glory in
heaven. The Doctor’s views of the person and undertaking of Christ, as
motives to love him, are also very fine. “These things,” he says, “have not
only rendered prisons and dungeons more desirable to the people of God,
than the most goodly palaces — on future accounts — but have made
them really places of such refreshment and joy, that men must seek in
vain to extract them out of all the comforts that this world can afford.
610
O curvae in terris animae et coelestium inanes.”
While the work, as a whole, is full of instruction and consolation, there
are parts of it which I either imperfectly understand, or cannot fully
approve. I confess I am hostile to all prolix discussions, or attempts at
explaining the doctrine of the Trinity, or the mode of subsistence, either
in the Deity or in the constitution of the person of Christ. In so far as
these things are at all revealed, they are matters of fact requiring belief. In
so far as they remain mysteries, endeavouring to explain them is useless
and absurd. The statements of Scripture on these subjects are all very
short, and abundantly more intelligible than any human dissertations
which have ever been written on them. When Owen speaks of the Divine
nature of Christ as God, or of his human nature as man, or of these
natures united constituting Immanuel, I understand, and go along with
him. But when he speaks of the “Eternal generation of the Divine person
of the Son, being a necessary internal act of the Divine nature, in the
Person of the Father,” he uses language, which I conceive to be both
unscriptural and unintelligible.
412
This is travelling out of the record, the only effect of which, in all such
cases, is darkening counsel by words without knowledge. The language of
the ancient creeds, and the discussions of the schoolmen have, I believe,
done more to cause men to stumble at the doctrine of the Trinity, than all
other things put together. How difficult, but how important it is, to follow
revelation fully, and to be satisfied within its limits! It is but a very small
portion of the volume, however, to which any objection can attach. A
judicious Christian will derive no injury from any part of it, and may
receive much comfort and establishment from the whole. The concluding
exhortation of his preface, which he quotes from Jerome, demands the
attention of all. “Whether you read or write, whether you watch or sleep,
let the voice of love toward Christ, sound in your ears: let this trumpet
stir up your soul; being overpowered with this love, seek him on your bed,
611
whom your soul desires and longs for.”
This large work was followed, the same year, by a 4to, pamphlet of forty-
seven pages, “The church of Rome no safe Guide, or reasons to prove that
no rational man, who takes due care of his own salvation, can give
himself up to the conduct of that church in matters of religion.” It was the
substance of two discourses preached to a private congregation, and
which he published in consequence of the importunities of many who
heard them.
413
Instead of recommending any church as a guide, he advocates the
exclusive right of the Holy Scriptures to this office, and points out the
extreme danger of men giving themselves up to the blind guidance of the
Romish church. As matters then stood in the country, a tract of this
nature was very necessary, and much calculated to promote the object he
had in view. The Morning Exercise against Popery among the Dissenters
(in which the Doctor was engaged), had been established for some years,
and had already published several learned discourses on the popish
controversy. No class of men then opposed so powerful a barrier to the
restoration of Popery, or so vigorously exerted themselves in defence of
the reformed faith, as the Protestant Dissenters. Most of the Church
clergy would have quietly submitted. And yet, though the more
respectable class of them felt and owned the services of the Dissenters to
the common cause, they afterwards basely deserted them, or united with
the high church party in oppressive measures to crush them. It is thus
that the friends of truth are often rewarded; their disinterested labours
and sufferings are soon forgotten. But their reward is in heaven, and their
record is on high.
This year, the Doctor lost his old friend and fellow-labourer at Oxford,
Dr. Thomas Goodwin, the last of the five Independent brethren of the
Westminster Assembly. After the Restoration, he went to London, where
he founded the Church which now meets in Fetter Lane. He lived very
privately, and was employed chiefly in writing. The inscription on his
tomb-stone in Bunhill fields, drawn up by Mr. Gilbert, gives him a very
high character, which his numerous writings very amply support. He had
a most extensive acquaintance with church history — was profoundly
skilled in the knowledge and interpretation of the Scriptures. The matter,
form, discipline, and all that relates to the constitution of a church of
Christ, he thoroughly investigated, and was eminently useful in his public
labours.
414
He died in his 80th year. In his last moments, he expressed himself with
so much joy, thankfulness and admiration for the grace of God, that it
612
extremely affected all who heard him.
In the beginning of 1680, the Doctor produced another Ecclesiastico-
political tract, in reference to the fears still entertained of the return of
Popery. It is entitled, “Some considerations about union among
Protestants, and the preservation of the interests of the Protestant
religion in this nation.” It contains only thirteen 4to pages, and has no
name prefixed. There are some very judicious observations in it on the
constitutional prerogatives of the throne — on the rights and liberties of
the subject — and on the proper means of preserving the Established
Church, and the toleration of Dissenters. He protests against the exercise
of civil power in merely religious affairs.
“Let the church be protected in the exercise of its spiritual power, by spiritual means only; such
as preaching the word, administration of the sacraments, and the like; whatever is further
pretended as necessary to any of the ends of true religion, or its preservation in the nation, is but
a cover for the negligence, idleness, and insufficiency of some of the clergy, who would have an
outward appearance of effecting by external force, that which they themselves by diligent prayer,
sedulous preaching of the word, and an exemplary conversation, ought to labour for in the
613
hearts of men.”
415
He contends that magistrates, by limiting themselves to the punishment
of the crimes cognizable by human judgment, and confining the church to
614
the exercise of her spiritual powers — freedom of opinion and practice
being enjoyed by others, Popery might be defied, and Protestantism
forever maintained in Britain. Our past history illustrates the wisdom and
justness of these sentiments, and any departure from them must prove
equally dangerous to the throne and the subject, to religion and liberty.
On the 11th of May, 1680, Dean Stillingfleet — who had formerly made
himself known by publishing what Robinson calls “an oily book, with a
615
nasty title,” preached a sermon before the Lord Mayor, “On the
Mischief of Separation.” In it he brands all the Dissenters with the odious
crime of schism. The peace-maker now became a sower of discord, not
without suspicion of being influenced by venal motives — because,
according to Burnet, “he went into the moods of the high sort of people,
beyond what became him, perhaps beyond his own sense of things.” This
unexpected and uncivil attack, roused all the energies of the Dissenters,
and in a short time a number of able and spirited replies were published.
Dr. Owen produced “A brief vindication of the Non-conformists from the
charge of schism, as it was managed against them in a sermon, by Dr.
Stillingfleet.” 4to pp. 56. 1680. This is a very excellent pamphlet. Some of
the Dissenters had complained of the untimeliness of the learned Dean’s
616
philippic, on account of the danger to the Protestant faith that was
apprehended from Popery. Owen was of a different opinion.
416
“For it is meet,” he says, “that honest men should understand the state of those things in which
 they are deeply concerned. Non-conformists might possibly suppose, that the common danger of
all Protestants had reconciled the minds of the Conforming ministers to them, and I was really
of the same judgment myself. If it be not so, it is well they are fairly warned, what they have to
617
expect, that they may prepare themselves to undergo it with patience.”
We need not be surprised at the feelings of Dissenters, and the conduct of
churchmen then. Innumerable attacks of the same kind since, and a
hundred years more experience, are scarcely sufficient to teach us the
folly of expecting forbearance or liberal treatment from an established
church. Owen points out the unfairness of charging the Non-conformists
with the sin of schism, and their ministers with insincerity. He shows that
the tendency of the Dean’s discourse was to stir up persecution against
the Dissenters, of which they had already gotten quite enough; and he
very fairly argues with him on the ground that he had himself taken, the
subject of schismatic separation. Towards the close, he replies to the
Dean’s advice, that the Dissenters “should not always be complaining of
their hardships and persecutions.”
“After so many of them have died in common jails, so many of them endured long
imprisonments, not a few being at this day in the same imprisonment; so many driven from
their habitations into a wandering condition, to preserve for a while the liberty of their persons;
so many have been reduced to want and penury by taking away their goods, and from some the
very instruments of their livelihood — after the prosecutions which have been against them in all
courts of justice in this nation; after so many ministers and their families have been brought into
the utmost outward straits which nature can subsist under; after all their perpetual fears and
dangers — they think it hard that they should be complained of for complaining, by those who
618
are at ease.”
417
Stillingfleet said of this Vindication,
“Dr. Owen treated me with such civility and decent language, that I cannot but return him
619
thanks for them, though I was far from satisfied with his reasonings.”
Dr. Owen was followed in the controversy by Mr. Baxter, who in his
“Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet’s charge of Separation,” did not treat the Dean
with so much courtesy; who accordingly complains “of his anger and
unbecoming passion.” A third reply was from a man of better spirit, Mr.
John Howe, who in “A letter written from the country to a person of
quality in the city,” expressed himself very firmly; but as the Dean himself
acknowledged, he was “more like a well-disposed gentleman than a
divine, without any mixture of rancour, and even with a great degree of
kindness.” Vincent Alsop opposed his “Mischief of Impositions” to
Stillingfleet’s Mischief of Separation. He briskly turns upon him his own
words and phrases, and retorts his accusations. The book, said the Dean,
resembled the bird of Athens, for it seemed to be made up of face and
feathers. The fifth antagonist, was Mr. Barret, of Nottingham, who
published an ingenious exposure of Stillingfleet’s inconsistency and
equivocation in “The Rector of Sutton (Stillingfleet’s parish when he
published the Irenicum) committed with the Dean of St. Paul’s; or a
defence of Dr. Stillingfleet’s Irenicum, against his recent sermon.”
418
This seems to have galled the learned Dean exceedingly. He remarked, it
was enough to make the common people suppose some busy justice of the
peace had taken on the Rector of Sutton, and Dean of St. Paul’s, at some
conventicle. And as a defence of his changes, he gravely tells the reader
that the Irenicum had been written twenty years before the laws against
Dissenters had been established!
620
Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis!
In the following year, the Dean took up all his opponents, in the
“Unreasonableness of separation, or an impartial account of the history,
nature, and pleas, of the present separation from the communion of the
church of England, To which several letters are annexed of eminent
Protestant divines abroad, concerning the nature of our differences, and
the way to compose them.” 4to. This work reveals considerable acuteness
and research. The historical part of it displays a minute acquaintance
with the sentiments and writings of the early separatists from the English
church, and with the very different views of the Presbyterian Puritans. He
shows successfully that many of the Puritans employed the same
arguments against the Brownists, which the churchmen now urged
against themselves. It cannot be denied that on the principles of many of
his adversaries, the Dean had the belter of the argument. The discussion
turned chiefly on this point: Are the parochial churches true churches? If
they are, why desert them? If you deny that they are, you are guilty of the
uncharitableness which your forefathers charged on the separatists. If
you hold occasional communion with them, which many of you do, and
for the lawfulness of which most of you contend, why separate from them
at all? Such were the dilemmas, on the horns of which the reverend Dean
endeavoured to toss his opponents.
419
Dr. Owen met him again in reply to this work. — “An answer to the
Unreasonableness of Separation, and a defence of the Vindication of the
Non-conformists from the guilt of schism.” 4to. It was published along
with his “Inquiry into the nature of Evangelical churches.” In this work,
Owen endeavours to avoid adopting any of the alternatives which the
Dean had pointed out. He explains what he understood as necessary to
the character of a true church, and declares that wherever the scriptural
evidences of it were afforded, he would most gladly acknowledge it. He
also points out what he conceived to affect the character of a church, and
wherever these evils prevailed, he could not be. On his side, therefore, he
pushes his adversary to make an election which must have greatly
puzzled him. Could he maintain that the parish churches of England
generally consisted of “faithful men?” Could he believe that the ministry
was generally blameless, that discipline was faithfully administered, and
that no unlawful impositions were laid on the conscience? Although
Owen does not make any positive assertion on the subject, it is quite clear
that the established church was never conducted on the principles for
which he contends; and his views of the character of church members,
and the exercise of discipline alone, must have prevented his fellowship
with any parochial assembly.
The controversy still raged. “More work for the Dean,” was published by
Mr. Thomas Wall, in answer to some of the Dean’s reports against the
Brownists. Mr. Barret replied a second time, in an “Attempt to vindicate
the principles of the Non-conformists, not only by Scripture, but by Mr.
Stillingfleet’s Rational Account.”
420
Mr. Lob produced his “Modest and Peaceable inquiry;” Mr. Baxter, his
“Second True defence of the mere Non-conformists;” Mr. Humphrey, his
“Answer to Dr. Stillingfleet’s book, as far as it concerned the Peaceable
design;” and Mr. Gilbert Rule, as late as 1689, his “Rational defence of
Non-conformity.” The Dean (now made Bishop as a reward for his
faithful services to the church), was not left to fight her battles alone. An
octavo volume appeared from the pen of a Presbyter of the Church of
England, defending Dr. Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separation.
Being taken up by some of the Dissenting pamphlets already noted, he
produced the next year, another thick octavo in its defence. This
Presbyter, according to Baxter, was none other than Dr. Sherlock, who
perhaps was not displeased to secretly get at his old adversaries, on
account of their treatment of his book on the Knowledge of Christ. These
are all the pamphlets, or volumes, on the Stillingfleet controversy, which I
have discovered. It must be admitted, they were numerous and prolix
enough. The characters engaged in it, and the place it must have occupied
in the public mind, rendered some account of it necessary. Many of the
pamphlets were anonymous; but I have assigned them to their respective
authors on evidence derived from the replies of their opponents, or for
other reasons too unimportant to bring forward.
I cannot dismiss the subject without noting another part of the debate. To
Stillingfleet’s Unreasonableness of Separation, were subjoined some
letters from foreign Presbyterians: Le Moyne, Professor of Divinity at
Leyden, L’ Angle, Minister of Charenton, and the celebrated Claude. All
these letters seemed to condemn the conduct of the English Non-
conformists, and were evidently procured for the purpose of making it
appear that their separation was not the result of principle, but of caprice,
or something worse.
421
The behaviour of these foreign Dissenters appeared very inexplicable at
the time. It was not till a volume of Claude’s letters were published, long
after, that it was fully explained. Stillingfleet, says Robinson,
“Driven to great distress, got Compton, Bishop of London, to write to Claude, Le Moyne, and
other French Presbyterians, for their opinion of English Presbyterianism. They gave
complaisant, but wary answers. These letters were published by Stillingfleet as suffrages for
Episcopacy, and against Non-conformity. There could not be a more glaring absurdity; for no art
can make that a crime at Dover, which is at the same time a virtue at Calais. Episcopacy and
Non-conformity rest on the same arguments in both kingdoms; and a man who does not know
this is not fit to write on the controversy. Mr. Claude complained bitterly of this ungenerous
treatment; but the letters that contained these complaints were concealed till his death; when
they were printed by his son.”
After quoting some strong passages from these letters to a lady, and to
the Bishop of London, Robinson justly remarks in conclusion:
“The case then is this. Episcopalians not being able to maintain their cause by argument,
endeavoured to do it by a majority of votes. In order to procure these, they sent a false state of
the case to the French Protestants. The French, as soon as they understood the matter,
complained of having been treated with duplicity, declared against the Bishops, and against the
621
cause they were endeavouring to support.”
422
Such tricks are exceedingly despicable, whether resorted to by Bishops or
by meaner men, and only tend, in the issue, to ruin the cause they are
designed to promote. Truth is equally independent of numbers and of
names; but it is infamous to represent those as enemies to each other,
who are really friends; and by unprincipled artifice to sow suspicion and
discord among brethren.
The next work we have to notice, which was published partly during the
Doctor’s life, and partly after his death, is the important Treatise on
Evangelical Churches. The first part of it, entitled “An Inquiry into the
Origin, Nature, Institution, Power, Order, and Communion of Evangelical
Churches,” was published in 1681. This was combined, as has been noted,
with his answer to Stillingfleet. The second part, entitled “The True
Nature of a Gospel Church, and its Government,” did not appear till 1688,
when it was published with a preface, by I. C. — whom I take to have been
Isaac Chauncey, who succeeded Mr. Clarkson in the pastoral charge of
the church in Bury Street. He tells us that,
“the Doctor lived to finish it under his great bodily infirmities; whereby he saw himself
hastening to the end of his race. Yet so great was his love to Christ, that while he had life and
breath, he did not draw back his hand from his service. Through the gracious support of Divine
power, he corrected the copy before his departure. The reader may be assured that what is here
is his — and likewise, that it ought to be esteemed as his legacy to the Church of Christ, being a
great part of his dying labours. Therefore, it is most charitable to suppose that this work was
written with no other design than to advance the glory and interest of Christ in the world; and
that its contents were matter of great weight on his own spirit.”
423
We have ascertained the sentiments of Dr. Owen on the subject of the
Constitution and Government of the Churches of Christ, at an early
period of his career. We have seen what they were while he enjoyed
honour and public support. It is gratifying to have so full a view of them
at the end of his life, and in the very prospect of eternity. He adopted his
views of the kingdom of Christ with the prospect before him of losing all
that was dear to him on that account. Prosperity effected no change on
his sentiments; amidst succeeding adversity and trouble he held them
fast and defended them, and he took leave of the world with a solemn
testimony in their support. These things are at least proofs of his growing
confidence in their truth and importance; and of the sincerity of his own
attachment to them.
I shall then endeavour to ascertain, from the work now before us, what
were the last sentiments of the Doctor on these subjects. In the first part,
he examines the origin of a church, or church state — shows that it is a
Divine, and not a human appointment; and that all interferences of
human authority with it are unlawful.
“Unless men, by their voluntary choice and consent, from a sense of duty to the authority of
Christ in his institutions, enter into a church state, they cannot by any other means be so framed
into it, as to find acceptance with God in it. And the interpositions that are made by custom,
tradition, the institutions and ordinances of men, between the consciences of those who belong,
or would belong to such a slate, and the immediate authority of God, are highly obstructive of
this Divine order and all the benefits of it. For hence it comes to pass that most men know
neither how nor whereby they came to be members of this or that church, except on this ground:
622
that they were born where it prevailed.”
424
He denies the existence of a Legislative authority either in or over the
church of God, and after briefly sketching the baneful consequences
which have resulted from Bishops and Councils, and civil Government
usurping this power, he says: —
“This, therefore, is absolutely denied by us, namely, That any men, under any pretence or name
soever, have any right or authority to constitute any new frame or order of the church, to
make any laws of their own for its rule or government, that should oblige the disciples of Christ
623
in point of conscience to their observation.”
He shows fully and successfully, that the churches of Christ have laws to
observe, and not laws to make; and that the assumption of an opposite
principle and conduct is derogatory to the glory of Christ, to the
perfection of Scripture, and inconsistent with the acknowledgment of the
infallibility, faithfulness, and Divine authority of the apostles. He goes on
to inquire into “The continuation of a church state, and of churches, to
the end of the world, and the causes on which they depend.” He shows
that they depend on the Father’s grant of the kingdom to Christ — on the
Saviour’s promise to preserve his church to the end — on the continued
existence of the word of Christ — and the communication of gifts from
him. In regard to believers, it depends on their sense of duty, the instinct
of the new creature, and the fact that it is only in churches that they can
attend to the will of Christ. He argues, therefore, that the idea of the
continuance of the church depending on a regular succession of office-
bearers from the apostles, is a baseless figment; it is as unnecessary to the
existence of the church, as it is unsupported by Scripture, contrary to fact,
and pernicious in its operation.
425
In chap. iv. he inquires into the special nature of the Gospel Church State
appointed by Christ, which he thus defines:
 “An especial society, or congregation of professed believers, joined together according to His
mind, with their officers, guides, or rulers whom he has appointed; which does or may meet
together for the celebration of all the ordinances of Divine worship, the professing or
authoritatively proposing the doctrine of the gospel, with the exercise of the discipline
prescribed by Himself, to their own mutual edification, with the glory of Christ, in the
624
preservation and propagation of his kingdom in the world.”
Having thus defined it, he goes on to explain his definition more
particularly, concluding with asserting “That to such a church, and every
one of them, belongs of right all the privileges, promises, and power that
625
Christ grants to the church in this world.” He then proceeds to prove
first, that “Christ has appointed this church state of a particular, or
single congregation; and secondly, that he has appointed no other
church state that is inconsistent with this, much less destructive of it.”
These quotations must satisfy the reader, that Owen was not only an
Independent, but a firm believer in the jus divinum [Divine justice] of
Independency. Comparing them with our statement of the principles of
Independency in Chapter III of this work, it will appear how far Dr. Owen
and those now called Independents are of the same mind; and,
comparing them with his language in Eshcol, published in 1648; with his
language to Cawdry in 1657; with the language of the Savoy declaration in
1658; with what he says in his Theologumena in 1662; in his Catechism
in 1667; and in his Discourses on Christian Love in 1673 — it will be seen
that his sentiments throughout were radically, and I may say verbally,
the same.
426
In supporting his views of the exclusive appointment of Congregational
Church Government, he shows that it is suited to, and sufficient for, all
the Spiritual ends of the Divine appointment of a church, and “that it is in
Congregational Churches alone that these ends can be done or
observed.” He maintains that the very meaning of the words ‫(ָק ָה ל‬qahal)
and ecclhsia (ecclesia) establishes that they signify a particular
congregation — which he argues at great length from Mat 18.17, in
connexion with other passages. He maintains, in the third place, that “All
the churches instituted by the apostles were Congregational, and of no
626
other sort.” Having amply illustrated these various positions in a way
that is familiar to all who are acquainted with this controversy, in the fifth
chapter he urges the precedent and example of the first churches. And he
endeavours to show “that in no approved writers for the space of 200
years after Christ, is there any mention made of any other organic, visibly
627
professing church, except that which is Parochial or Congregational.”
This being dispatched, he returns to illustrate at greater length some of
the sentiments previously thrown out. In chapter 6, he shows that
“Congregational churches alone are suited to the ends of Christ in the
institution of his church.” This being fully confirmed, the next chapter is
occupied in proving that “no other church state is of Divine institution.”
In this chapter he denies that there are any such things as national
churches, or churches of office bearers of any kind.
427
The remaining part of the work is occupied in pointing out the duty of
believers to join themselves in church fellowship — and what sort of
churches they ought to join; and in showing the impossibility of
conscientiously joining the Parish Churches in England (because they
consisted mostly of improper persons), he shows it required a
reformation which they had no power to effect themselves, and involved
the observation of many things not agreeable to the will of Christ.
The second part, or volume of the work is divided into eleven chapters, in
which he treats the material of a church — its formal cause, its polity or
discipline, officers and their duties; and the rule of a church — the duty of
elders and deacons, excommunication, and the communion of churches.
There is, in parts of this volume, a lack of that rigid attention to method
or order which sometimes occurs in the writings of Owen, and which
occasions both repetition and confusion, and even an apparent lack of
consistency.
He clearly establishes a very important principle, that none but those who
give evidence of being regenerated, or holy persons, ought to be received
or counted fit members of visible churches; and that where this is lacking,
the very, essence of a church is lost.
“If the corruption of a church,” he says, “as to the matter of it, is such that it is inconsistent with
and overthrows all that communion which should exist among the members of the same church,
in love and without dissimulation; — if the scandals and offences which must of necessity
abound in such churches, are really obstructive of edification; — if the ways and walking of most
of their members is dishonourable to the gospel and its profession, giving no representation of
the holiness of Christ or his doctrine; — if such churches do not, cannot, and will not reform
themselves — then it is the duty of every man who takes care for his own edification, and the
future salvation of his soul, to peaceably withdraw from the communion of such churches, and
628
to join in others, where all the ends of church societies may in some measure be obtained.”
428
Two things in this volume have a particular claim on our attention: the
Doctor’s sentiments on the subject of ruling Elders, and of the
communion of Churches — which have been supposed to be either
peculiar to, or a species of Presbyterianism. If this were the case, it would
not follow that either Independency or Presbytery, would be right or
wrong, as the truth on these subjects is entirely independent of Owen’s
sentiments or authority. But it would follow that the Doctor was
inconsistent with himself, presuming that we alleged incontrovertible
evidence that he held all the great and fundamental principles of
Independency. There is no room to allege any change of mind on his part,
as the present volume is only a part of the former work on the same
subject; and it was written nearly at the same time, though on account of
his death, published several years after. And as the Doctor never hints in
the most remote manner, at any change of mind having taken place, we
are bound to consider his sentiments to have been the same to the end of
his life. In consequence of the quantity which he wrote, the rapidity with
which he composed, the little attention which he paid to revising or
correcting his works, and the multitude of words which he generally
employed on every subject, he is at times liable to be misunderstood.
429
And it would be an easy matter for a captious writer, or a contradiction-
hunter, like Daniel Cawdry, to fasten the charge of inconsistency on a
variety of sentiments in Owen’s numerous productions. Attention to the
scope of his writing, however, and a comparison of the parts, will in
general satisfy us that little actual inconsistency or contradiction exists.
On the subject of Pastors or Elders, and the distinction between teaching
and ruling Elders, one or two quotations will enable us to ascertain his
real sentiments. He lays it down, let it be observed, as an established
position, that the New Testament acknowledges no distinction of power,
office, or authority in the pastoral office.
“In the whole New Testament, Bishops, and Presbyters, or Elders are in every way the same
persons, in the same office; they have the same function, without distinction in order or
629
degree.”
This is a clear and decisive statement, with which everything else in the
work must be made consistent. Again he says:
“These works of teaching and ruling may be distinct in several officers, namely, of teachers and
 rulers. But to divide them in the same office of Pastors — that some Pastors should feed by
teaching only, but have no right to rule by virtue of their office, and that some should attend in
exercise for rule only, not considering themselves obliged to labour continually in feeding the
flock — is almost to overthrow this office of Christ’s designation, and to set up two in its place,
630
by men’s own projection.”
These passages clearly show that Dr. Owen considered the pastoral office
as one office, including both teaching and ruling. Now, the principles and
practice of Presbyterians make them two. In the Confession of Faith,
under the head of Church Government, after the office of Pastor and
Teacher is spoken of, there is a section designated “Other Church
Governors;” whose office it is “to join with the Minister in the
Government of the Church, which officers, Reformed Churches
commonly call Elders.”
430
According to this statement, which is confirmed by other chapters, there
are three offices in every congregation, Pastors, Elders, and Deacons.
This accordingly corresponds with the general fact. A Minister, the
Elders, and the Deacons commonly exist in every regular congregation,
and constitute the Session, or first court of inspection. These offices are
held to be so distinct, that the Ministers alone are ever considered as
Pastors or Clergymen, and the Elders are considered mere Laymen, for
whom it would be as unlawful to preach, baptize, or dispense Divine
ordinances, as for other members of the congregation. Whether this plan
is Scriptural or not, I do not now inquire; but certainly it was not Dr.
Owen’s.
“I acknowledge,” he says, “that where a church has greatly increased, so as there is a necessity
for many Elders in it for its instruction and rule, that decency and order require that one of them
preside in the management of all church affairs. Whether the person that is to so preside, is
directed by being the first converted or first ordained, or on account of age, or gifts and abilities;
whether he continues only for a season, and then another is deputed to the same work, or for his
life, are things indifferent in themselves. I will never oppose this order; but rather I desire to see
it in practice; namely, that particular churches were of such an extent as to necessarily require
many Elders — both teaching and ruling — for their instruction and government. And among
these Elders, one should be chosen by themselves, with the consent of the Church, not into a
new order, not into a degree of authority above his brethren, but only into his part of the
common work in a particular manner, which requires some kind of precedency. Hereby no new
officer, no new order of officers, no new degree of power or authority, is instituted in the
Church; only, its work and duty are cast into such an order, as the very light of nature requires.”
631

431
The ground on which he evidently rests here — the necessity and
importance of a number of persons being associated in the same office —
is the extent or number of the church. This is a sentiment far from
peculiar among Independents, and to Dr. Owen, It is equally clear, at the
same time, that he considers them all as holding the same office, names,
and authority — though, with mutual consent, acting more or less
prominently in its several departments. It also deserves to be noticed, in
connexion with considering his sentiments, that in his own church in
Bury Street, there were no ruling Elders. This is a proof that he did not
consider them essential to the management of the church, or that he
found it easier to maintain his theory than to reduce it to practice, by
finding a number of persons suitably qualified for the office. To such
persons, however few or many, he ascribed no power or authority as a
body distinct from their brethren, or from the church. “The power of the
Keys,” he says, “as to binding and loosing, and consequently as to all
other acts proceeding from there, is expressly granted to the whole
632
church. Mat 18.17, 18.” This right, he afterwards remarks, “is
633
exemplified in apostolic practice.”
He has a chapter on the office of Teaching Elders, in which he discusses
various views of the subject; and in which he professes to think that it is
“of the same kind as that of the Pastor, though distinguished from it in
634
degree.”
432
After noting the question whether there may be one or many officers,
Pastors, or Elders in a church, he says,
“Therefore, let the state of the church be preserved, and kept to its original constitution, which is
Congregational and no other; and I judge that the order of the officers, which was so early in
the primitive church, namely, of one Pastor or Bishop, in one church, assisted in rule and all
holy ministrations, with many Elders — teaching or ruling only — do not so overthrow church
635
order, as to render its rule or discipline useless.”
The amount of the whole of his reasonings seems to be that in every
numerous or fully organized church, there may or ought to be an
Eldership, or Presbytery of gifted persons. All of them hold substantially
the same office, but some act more statedly and distinctly in a particular
department of it than the others. Those who are at all acquainted with the
sentiments of Independents, well know that this view of the subject is far
from peculiar to Dr. Owen. In fact, Independency has no necessary
connexion with the question respecting the number of office bearers. An
Independent church may have one, or it may have six Pastors; or it may
have one Pastor and Teacher, and any number of Elders for managing
other matters — and still act on the same principles.
The long chapter on ruling Elders must be explained consistent with the
sentiments we have shown to be contained in the former part of the work
— otherwise the Doctor must not have clearly understood himself. In that
chapter, he seems to contend for a distinct office of ruling Elder, or for
Elders who are called to rule and not to teach; who “had no interest in the
pastoral, or ministerial office, as to the dispensation of the word and
636
administration of the sacraments.”
433
Whoever can, let them reconcile these things. The Doctor himself did not,
or could not, act on these principles; nor do we believe they have ever
been acted on in the manner or to the extent he seems to plead for, by any
churches, whether Independent or Presbyterian. This is not the place for
discussing the propriety or impropriety of any particular view of the
subject; those who wish to do so, will easily find what can be said, in the
numerous works which have been published on both sides of the
controversy.
We pass on to his sentiments on the subject of the Communion of
Churches. From employing the term synod in the sense of council, or
meeting for advice, and some other phraseology more usual among other
bodies than Independents, it has been inferred that the Doctor was a
believer in the Divine right of ecclesiastical courts, or meetings of church
rulers, for the purpose of exercising authority over their respective
churches. It must be obvious that such sentiments would be subversive of
all his former views as a Congregationalist, inconsistent with the
language we have already quoted from this volume itself, and they would
place him in the strange predicament of seeking to build again the things
he had destroyed. The Doctor is not chargeable with these things, further
than some peculiar phraseology is concerned. This will clearly appear
from a few passages in which we have printed, in italics, the words which
show that he contended for no meetings of councils, except those which
were perfectly consistent with the freedom and authority of every
particular church.
434
He defines the Communion of Churches thus:
“Their consent, endeavour, and conjunction in and for the promotion of the edification of the
Catholic Church, and therein their own, as they are parts and members of it.”
I presume every Independent will subscribe to this definition. He
contends for the absolute equality of all churches, in respect to power or
privilege. Speaking of the Catholic Church, he says with great propriety,
“While Evangelical faith, holiness, obedience to the commands of Christ,
and mutual love abide in any on the earth, there is the Catholic Church;
and while they are professed, that Catholic Church is visible. I believe
there is no other Catholic Church upon the earth; nor any that needs
637
other things for its constitution.”
When he comes to speak of outward acts of Communion among
638
Churches, he refers them to two heads: “Advice and Assistance. These
are evidently very different things from power or authority.
“Synods,” he says, “are the meetings of diverse churches by their messengers or delegates, to
consult and determine about those things which are of common concern to them all, by virtue of
639
this communion which is exercised in them.”
He then proceeds to state the grounds on which he conceives the
necessity and use of them to rest. In the course of which he remarks,
“No Church, therefore, is so Independent that it can always, and in all cases, observe the duties it
owes to the Lord Christ, and to the Church Catholic, by all those powers which it is able to act in
itself distinctly, without conjunction with others. And the Church which confines its duty to the
acts of its own assemblies, cuts itself off from the external communion of the Church Catholic —
640
nor will it be safe for any man to commit the conduct of his soul to such a church.”
435
This passage has been often quoted as the testimony of Dr. Owen against
Independency. How far it can be so, consistent with his sentiments, may
be judged from his previous language and history. But to what does it
amount? — That the church which has no connexion with any other
churches — which holds no correspondence with them — which takes no
interest in their affairs or circumstances — which refuses all co-operation
with them — separates itself from the body of the people of God, and it
must fail in the discharge of many important duties. Therefore, it cannot
be safe to be connected with it. But who are the defenders of this species
of Independency? Let those who believe it to be inconsistent with union,
and incompatible with co-operation do so. Need I say that this is not the
faith or practice of modern Independents, any more than it is of ancient
Independents? If I should assert that for every practical and important
purpose, there is as much union and co-operation among them, as among
any other body of professing Christians; and that these are no less
effective because they are voluntary; I should not be afraid of confutation.
What is the meaning of their local associations — of their meetings at
ordinations — of their united support of academies — of their union for
the support and diffusion of the gospel, both at home and abroad? If
these are not the proofs and the best fruits of union, let others show them
a more excellent way.
When we call the union of Independent Churches voluntary, we do not
mean to say that they hold it to be optional whether they have
communion with other Churches — or as Dr. Owen expresses it, with the
Church Catholic — on all proper occasions. They acknowledge that they
are bound to improve for this purpose as matter of duty to the great Head
of the Church, and for the good of themselves and their brethren. Their
only meaning is that they acknowledge no human authority, whether in
individuals or synods, whether by office or delegation.
436
Dr. Owen has been represented, in the above passage, as making a
singular concession to Presbyterianism, whereas he is expressing the
genuine principle of Independency. The connexion to which he belonged,
while he lived, and the state of it at present, to say the very least, is as far
removed from the insulated and selfish society he describes, as any
denomination of Christians whatever.
After the Doctor has noted some of the ends or uses of such meetings, he
proceeds to speak of the persons who ought to constitute them.
“It must therefore be affirmed,” he says, “that no persons, merely by virtue of any office, have
light to be members of any Ecclesiastical Synods as such. Nor is there either example or reason
to justify any such pretence. For there is no office-power to be exerted in such synods as such,
641
either conjunctly by all the members of them, nor singly by any one of them.”
Again, referring to the meeting at Jerusalem, of which we have an
account in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, he says,
“The Church of Antioch chose and sent messengers of their own number, to advise with the
Apostles and Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, at which consultation the members of the
Church were also present. And this is the whole of the nature and use of Ecclesiastical synods.”
642

Nothing can show more evidently than this language, that the Doctor
considered them as entirely voluntary meetings of the Churches for the
purpose of advice, consultation, and cooperation about matters of
common concern. He invests them with no power over the churches, or
their office- bearers, further than that of advice, or of explaining and
persuading to obey the will of Christ.
437
As an antidote to any use that might be made of his sentiments or
authority on this subject, the following passage will show how little faith
he himself had in the good such meetings had done, how jealous the
people of God ought to be of them; and how little authority he was
disposed to ascribe to them.
“Hence nothing is more to be feared, especially in a state of the Church in which it is declining in
faith, worship, and holiness, than synods — according to the usual way of their calling and
convention, where these things are absent. For they have already been the principal means of
leading on and justifying all the Apostasy which Churches have fallen into. For there was
never yet a synod of that nature, which did not confirm all the errors and superstitions which
had in common practice entered into the Church, and opened a door to their progress; nor was
ever the pretence of any of them, for outward reformation. The authority of a synod
determining articles of faith! — Constituting orders and decrees for the conscientious
observance of things of their own appointment — to be submitted to and obeyed by reason of
that authority, under the penalty of excommunication — and the trouble annexed to it by
custom and tyranny, or enacted through jurisdiction over Churches or persons — is a mere
human invention, for which nothing can be pleaded but a prescription from the fourth century
643
of the Church, when the progress of the fatal apostasy had become visible.”
Those who claim the suffrage of Owen in support of Ecclesiastical
authority, are now made quite welcome to it. It must be very evident,
what he thought of it, how far he would himself have submitted to it, or
have recommended to others to acknowledge it.
438
There is a vast difference between the unity of love, or the co-operation of
voluntary agreement, and the union of mere systematic arrangement —
between application for advice, and the interference of uncalled for
authority — between a simple reference to brethren of reputation, for
counsel and assistance in cases of difficulty (which may occur either
among individuals or churches), and the multiplied forms, regular
gradations, and interminable appeals of Ecclesiastical courts. Those who
believe Owen to have been favourable to the latter, must have paid little
attention to his sentiments or history. Those who believe modern
Independents to be inimical to the former, must know just as little about
them. Apart from some of the language in which it was customary for
Owen to clothe his theological conceptions, we believe there are few
Independents who do not hold substantially the same sentiments on the
subject we have now so fully gone over. They may doubt some of his
arguments, and they could question some of his explanations of
Scripture. These are only what might be remarked on many other
subjects as well as this. And they will ever be found where men are taught
to acknowledge no authority in religion, but that of Christ, as exhibited in
the revelation of His will.
The next work of our indefatigable author’s pen is, “A Humble Testimony
to the Goodness and Severity of God, in his dealing with Sinful Churches
and Nations.” 1681. It is the substance of some discourses on Luke 13.1-5.
The period was alarming. The dissolution of the Parliament called at
Oxford, within seven days of its meeting — the evident determination of
the Court to support the popish succession in the person of the Duke of
York — and the oppressive measures against the Dissenters, which were
still continued and increased, produced much alarm and suffering in the
country.
439
“On various accounts,” says the Doctor, “there are continual apprehensions of public calamities,
and all men’s thoughts are exercised about the ways of deliverance from them. But as they fix on
various and opposite means for this end, the conflict of their counsels and designs increased our
644
danger, and is likely to prove our ruin.”
He notices very properly the interest that ministers ought to feel, not only
that their congregations prosper during their own lives; but that they
might be preserved for future generations. And he notes that it is a great
mistake to suppose that a church can be injured only by heresy, tyranny,
and false worship — while “a worldly corrupt conversation in most of its
members may be no less ruinous.” The Testimony contains much of that
practical wisdom which the Doctor had acquired from his long and deep
study of the word of God, and from his extensive experience in the ways
of Providence. He very cautiously avoids referring to the conduct of the
Court, and the measures of Government. He was aware how ready they
were to lay hold on all who took notice of their proceedings, and how little
good was likely to result from political allusions on his part, and
interference on theirs.
The Testimony was followed by “The Grace and Duty of being Spiritually
Minded,” 4to. 1681. This is one of the most valuable and deservedly
popular of all the Doctor’s writings. It was originally the subject of his
private meditations, during a time in which he was entirely unfitted for
doing anything for the edification of others, and little expecting he would
be able to do more in this world.
440
After he obtained a partial recovery, he delivered the substance of these
meditations to his own congregation, partly influenced by the advantage
he had derived from the subject himself, and partly from considering it
suitable to the circumstances of his people. The same considerations
induced him to publish it for the benefit of others. If Owen thought the
world was too keenly pursued in his time (which was probably the case),
and that Christians then stood much in need of a powerful counteractive
to its baneful influence, what would he have thought of the state of things
now, when the spirit of speculation, the love of grandeur, and conformity
to the world, seem to be the snares which are entangling and trying all
those who dwell upon the earth? The only remedy, we apprehend, is that
which he proposed and exemplified. Scriptural spirituality will enable us
to bear the perplexities and pressure of distress, and to resist the elations
and other unholy tendencies of prosperity and honour. This state of mind
which is the opposite of earthliness as well as carnality; which is the
result of the peculiar and habitual influence of the Spirit of Christ; which
consists in the constant exercise of faith on the Divine testimony, of hope
in the certain promises of the gospel, and of delightful fellowship with the
Father and with his dear Son — is admirably described by Owen. This is
the life which every Christian is called to cultivate, and without which, no
name or profession is of any importance. Its operations may be
manifested and its felicities enjoyed in a palace or in a cottage. It is the
name which only he who receives it knows — the water of life which
proceeds from the throne of God and of the Lamb, and of which, whoever
drinks never thirsts again for worldly or sensual happiness.
441
It is, in a word, that immortal existence, which is begun on earth, and
perfected in heaven. As Owen approached nearer and nearer to “the
bosom of his Father and his God,” he appears to have improved in
spirituality of mind himself, and in his desire to impart a relish for it to
others. His spirit was soon to ascend to the brightness of that eternal love
and glory on which it had long delighted to gaze. And before its
departure, it reflected a portion of its heaven-derived lustre for the
benefit of his brethren left behind. May his mantle rest upon them, and in
the enjoyment of a double portion of his spirit, may they experience that
the Lord God of Owen is still the same; and that He is able to do for his
people infinitely beyond what they can ask or think!
In 1683, he published a quarto pamphlet of 40 pages, “A Brief and
Impartial Account of the Protestant Religion; its present state in the
world; its strength and weakness,” etc. In this tract he points out what he
conceives to be the grounds of Protestantism as contained in the Bible;
examines the danger to which it was exposed from a general defection,
from the operation of force, or from a reconciliation with Rome. While he
intimates his fears from these causes, he balances them by other grounds
of confidence; such as the honour of Christ to maintain his cause, the
remnant of his people found among the nations, and the magnanimous
spirit by which they were actuated. He concludes by expressing his full
conviction that it would ultimately and universally triumph.
442
The last work of his pen, was, his “Meditations and Discourses on the
Glory of Christ,” which were committed to the press on the day in which
he died. They consist of two parts: the first treats the Person, Office, and
Grace of Christ; the second (which did not appear till 1691) consists of the
application of the truths contained in the former, to sinners and declining
believers. Between this publication, and the “Dying Thoughts” of Baxter,
a considerable similarity subsists. Whatever the differences were between
these eminent men on minor points, there was an intimate union
between them, in spirituality of affections, in deadness to the world, and
in longing aspirations toward that heavenly felicity, so large a portion of
which they both enjoyed and diffused on earth. It has been remarked,
that disputants will often agree in their prayers, when they differ in their
writings. Christians may differ while they live; but will generally agree in
their feelings and sentiments towards each other in the near prospect of
death. Eternity, when closely viewed, must materially affect our estimate
of the transactions of time; and one thing alone can render the prospect
of entering it, pleasing and delightful to the mind. The glory of Christ, like
that of the sun, increases in splendour as we advance upon it. It
increasingly reveals the meanness and pollution of our earthly residence,
and sheds a lustre over the “inheritance of the saints in light,” which
renders it infinitely attractive. The exercise of faith, hope, and love,
directed towards heavenly things, acquires the strength and influence of a
habit — futurity, often contemplated, is felt to be present — and invisible
things acquire a form and consistency in the mind.
443
It does not indeed appear what we shall be; but as we become weaned
from this sinful world, and feel that our life is hid with Christ in God, our
earnest of heavenly happiness not only becomes more sure, but it is
better understood, and more abundant. The love of life loses its power,
the fear of death diminishes; knowledge ripens to perfection, and the
song of victory begins to be sung on the borders of the tomb. In this life,
Christians suffer immense loss from not meditating on the person and
glory of Christ as they ought to do. It is a mistake to suppose that this will
be easy on a death bed, if the mind has not been previously tutored to it.
It is a subject which ought to become increasingly familiar, and
increasingly delightful. If it constitutes the perfection and employment of
heaven, it ought surely to be the subject of chief regard on earth. The
more that it is so, the more our conduct will be marked with the decision
of Christianity, and the more the mind will be imbued by its spirit; till,
from sipping the streams, we rise to the full enjoyment of the ever-living
and infinite fountain of heavenly joy. “Now we see through a glass darkly;
but then face to face: now we know in part; but then shall we know even
as we are known.” 1Cor 13.12
Besides all the works we have noted, Owen was the author of some other
productions which appeared at distant intervals after his death. He also
wrote a great number of prefaces, or commendatory epistles to the works
of other writers. Some account of all these will be found in the Appendix,
as far as they are known to me. To have introduced them here, would
have diverted us too long from the concluding scenes of his earthly
career, to which we must now attend.
444
The health of Dr. Owen appears to have been much reduced for several
years before his death. His intense and unwearied application, the fruits
of which appear in his numerous and elaborate writings, and his anxious
solicitude respecting the affairs of his Master’s kingdom, must have
destroyed the vigour of any constitution. He was severely afflicted with
the stone, that painful and common accompaniment of a studious life. To
this was added asthma, a complaint peculiarly unfavourable to public
speaking. These disorders frequently confined him to his chamber; but
though they often prevented him from preaching, they must have
interfered little with his writing; otherwise, so many works could not have
been composed during the last years of his life.
While tried by these painful afflictions, he experienced much sympathy
from his Christian friends. He had frequent invitations to the country
residences of persons of quality, and particularly to that of Lord Wharton,
at Woburn, in Buckinghamshire. While occasionally at the seat of this
benevolent and Christian nobleman, he was often visited by persons of
rank, and enjoyed the company of many of his Christian brethren in the
ministry, who resorted there. From his house, during one of his severe
attacks, he wrote a letter to the Church, so characteristic of the man, so
suitable to the circumstances of the times and of his people, that the
reader will be gratified by finding it entire at the end of this volume.
His infirmities rendering a fixed residence in the country necessary, he
took a house at Kensington, where he lived for some time. During this
period, an accident occurred which shows the state of the times, and the
hardships to which Dissenters were then exposed.
445
Going one day from Kensington to London, his carriage was seized by two
informers. This must have been exceedingly painful to the Doctor at any
time, but especially when in a state of health made him ill capable of
bearing the violent excitement of such an interference, and its probable
consequences. It providentially happened, however, that Sir Edmund
Bury Godfrey, a justice of the peace, was passing at the time. Seeing a
carriage stopped, and a mob collected, he inquired into the matter. He
ordered the informers and Dr. Owen to meet him at a justice’s house in
Bloomsbury square, on another day, when the cause would be tried. In
the meantime, the Doctor was discharged. And when the meeting took
place, it was found that the informers had acted so illegally, that they
were severely reprimanded, and the business dismissed.
In the last year of his life, when Owen was probably thinking of another
world, rather than of the politics of this one, a vile attempt was made to
involve him and some of the other eminent Non-conformists, in the Rye
645
house plot. Mr. Mead, Mr. Griffiths, and Mr. Carstairs, were charged
with meditating the assassination of the King and the Duke of York!
Several distinguished individuals, among whom was the amiable and
patriotic Lord Russel, were sacrificed for their supposed connexion with
this business. The ministers, however, seem to have been free from any
other blame than that of conversing freely with each other, about what
646
they ought to do in the event of things coming to a crisis. The
testimony of Mr. Carstairs, who was more connected with the politics of
the country than any of the other ministers, and who suffered most
severely and unjustly on account of this sham-plot, is full and explicit as
to the innocence of the Dissenters.
446
“I should be guilty,” he says, “of the most horrid injustice, if I should accuse any of the worthy
gentlemen of my own country, that were my fellow prisoners, or any of the English Dissenting
ministers, of having the least knowledge of, or concern in the abominable assassination of the
King or his brother. For I did then, as I do now, abhor such practices; nor can I, to this hour, tell
647
really what was in that matter that makes such a noise.”
Indeed, there can scarcely be a doubt that it was entirely a contrivance of
the court, to involve the friends of religion and liberty in disgrace; and to
gain some of its own iniquitous ends. The business is of too infamous a
nature to induce the smallest suspicion that men of religious character or
648
honour could be engaged in it.
From Kensington, the Doctor moved to Ealing, a few miles farther into
the country, where he had some property and a house of his own; and
where he was destined to finish his course. His state of mind in the
prospect of eternity, might be inferred from his work on spiritual-
mindedness, and his meditations on the glory of Christ; so that without
any further evidence, we might be convinced of the falseness of Anthony
Wood’s assertion, “That he very unwillingly laid down his head and died.”
649
But we are not dependent entirely on the evidence of these works, for
our estimate of the Doctor’s feelings in this interesting situation. The
following letter to his intimate friend, Charles Fleetwood, dictated the day
before Owen died, reveals the state of his mind to have been not only
composed, but highly animated by the glorious hope of eternal life.
447
“Although I am not able to write one word myself, yet I am very desirous to speak one word
more to you in this world, and do it by the hand of my wife. The continuance of your entire
kindness, knowing what it is accompanied with, is not only greatly valued by me, but will be a
refreshment to me, as it is even in my dying hour. I am going to Him whom my soul has loved,
or rather who has loved me with an everlasting love, which is the whole ground of all my
consolation. The passage is very irksome and wearisome, through strong pains of various sorts,
which are all issued in an intermitting fever. All things were provided to carry me to London
today, according to the advice of my physicians; but we are all disappointed by my utter
 disability to undertake the journey. I am leaving the ship of the church in a storm; but while the
great Pilot is in it, the loss of a poor under-rower will be inconsiderable. Live, and pray, and
hope, and wait patiently, and do not despond; the promise stands invincible, that He will never
leave us nor forsake us. I am greatly afflicted at the distempers of your dear lady; the good Lord
stand by her, and support and deliver her. My affectionate respects to her, and the rest of your
relations, who are so dear to me in the Lord. Remember your dying friend with all fervency; I
650
rest upon it that you do so, and am yours entirely.”
This letter exhibits the ground of the Doctor’s hope — the tranquillity of
his mind — the humility of his disposition — his interest in the afflictions
of the church, but confidence in her security — his attachment to his
friends and the pleasure which he derived from the fellowship of their
kindness and prayers. It is just such a letter as we might have expected
from the preceding life and character of the writer.
448
His sufferings previous to his death, appear to have been uncommonly
severe, arising from the natural strength of his constitution, and the
complication of his maladies. But the blessed truth which he had long
preached to the edification and comfort of many, and in defence of which
he had written so much and so well, proved fully adequate not only to
support him, but to make him triumph in the prospect of eternity. On the
morning of the day on which he died, Mr. Thomas Payne, an eminent
tutor and Dissenting minister, at Saffron Waldon, in Essex — who had
been entrusted with the publication of his Meditations on the glory of
Christ — called to take his leave, and to inform him, that he had just been
putting that work to the press. “I am glad to hear it,” said the dying
Christian; and lifting up his hands and eyes, as if transported with
enjoyment, exclaimed — “But O! brother Payne! the long wished for day
has come at last, in which I shall see that glory in another manner than I
have ever done, or was capable of doing in this world.” This exclamation
reminds us of the beautiful words of Cicero, to which there is a striking
resemblance; but which have a very different emphasis in the mouth of a
dying saint, from what they have in the mouth of a heathen philosopher.
“O praeclarum diem, cum ad illud divinum animorum concilium coetumque proficiscar, cumque
ex hac turba et colluvione discedam! proficiscar enim non ad eos solum viros, de quibus ante
651
dixi; sed etiam ad Catonem meum,” etc.
449
It was not, however, the prospect of seeing a Cato, though that Cato was a
beloved son; or a Paul, though that Paul was an apostle, that animated
the hopes of Owen; but the prospect of beholding him who once died for
the guilty, who is the sum of all perfection; and the sight of whom imparts
to all who behold him immortal happiness, and heavenly purity. To him,
death would be a deliverance from the burden of sin, from the anxieties
and cares which had long disturbed his repose, and from those
excruciating pains of body, which had been the long forerunners of
dissolution. It would also be, what is more than all the rest, absence from
the body, to be present with the Lord.
“Happy day that breaks our chain!
That manumits; that calls from exile home;
That leads to nature’s great metropolis,
And re-admits us, through the guardian hand
Of elder Brother’s to our Father’s throne.”
His death took place on the twenty-fourth of August, 1683, the
anniversary of the celebrated Bartholomew ejection, and in the sixty-
seventh year of his age. He was speechless for several hours before; but
showed by lifting up his eyes and hands with great devotion, that he
retained the use of his mental faculties, and his devotional feelings to the
last. He was attended by Dr. Cox and Dr. (afterward Sir) Edmund King,
who assigned a physical reason for the extreme severity of his last
agonies. “Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright, for the end of
that man is peace!” — “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord — they
rest from their labours; and their works follow them.”
450
From 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 was
conveyed to Bunhill fields, attended by the carriages of sixty-seven
noblemen and gentlemen; besides many mourning coaches and persons
on horseback. Such a testimony to the memory of a man who died
destitute of court and of church favour — who had been often abused by
the sycophants of tyranny, and the enemies of religion; and at a time
when it was dangerous to take part with the persecuted Non-conformists
— was equally honourable to the dead and to the living. He was doubtless
dear to many whom he had instructed by his preaching, and comforted by
his writings. They must have sorrowed over his grave, as it closed upon
the remains of a valuable and most devoted servant of Christ. But their
sorrow would be mingled with joy, when they reflected on his
deliverance, and indulged the sure and certain hope of his resurrection to
eternal life. He indeed left the church in a storm, when there were
comparatively few who cared for her state. But he entered into rest, and
in a few years she obtained deliverance and repose. How he would have
exulted if he had lived till the Glorious Revolution (1688), and enjoyed for
a little, the happy effects of that long and arduous struggle in which the
country had been engaged, and in which he and his brethren bore so
prominent a part! They were honoured to sustain the burden and heat of
the day, while we repose with comfort in the shade. They fought the
battle, and we reap the fruit of the victory. They, however, will have their
due reward when the reproach of the world, and the abuse of party
prejudice — as well as all the effects they have produced — will be forever
destroyed by the applauding approval of the Righteous Judge.
451
His death was improved to the church on the Lord’s day after the funeral,
by his brother and colleague, Mr. Clarkson, from Philippians 3.21. —
“Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like his
glorious body.” It is a short, but consolatory discourse. He does not enter
largely into the Doctor’s character, and gives nothing of his history. The
last paragraph is solemn and affecting, and must have sensibly touched
the church,
“His death falls heaviest and most directly upon this congregation. We had a light in this
candlestick, which not only enlightened the room, but gave light to others far and near: but it is
put out. We did not sufficiently value it; I wish I might not say, that our sins have put it out. We
had a special honour and ornament, such as other churches would much prize; but the crown
has fallen from our heads, indeed, may I not add, ‘Woe unto us for we have sinned.’ We have lost
an excellent pilot, and lost him when a fierce storm is coming on us. I dread the consequences,
considering the weakness of those who are left at the helm. If we are not sensible of it, it is
because our blindness is great. Let us beg of God, that He would prevent what this threatens us
with, and that he would make up this loss, or that it may be repaired. And let us pray in the last
words of this dying person to me — ‘That the Lord would double his spirit upon us, that he
would not remember against us former iniquities; but that his tender mercies may speedily
prevent us, for we are brought very low.’”
By his Will, he left the estate of Eaton, in Berkshire, to his wife during her
life. Upon her death, that estate and another at Stadham, were
bequeathed to his brother Henry Owen (who, however, died before
himself), or to his son Henry who, I suppose, succeeded to both.
452
Among the legacies are twenty pounds to John Collins, the pastor of a
respectable Independent church in London; five pounds apiece to Mr.
David Clarkson, Mr. Robert Ferguson, and Mr., Isaac Loafs; thirty
pounds to one female servant, and twenty to another, who had attended
 652
him during his illness.
His Library was sold in May 1684, by Millington, one of the earliest of our
653
book auctioneers. Considering the Doctor’s taste as a reader, his age as
a minister, and his circumstances as a man, his library, in all probability,
would be both extensive and valuable. He had become the possessor of
the Greek and Latin MSS. which had belonged to Patrick Young, better
known by his Latin name Junius: one of the most celebrated Greek
scholars of his time, who had been keeper of the Royal Library, at St.
654
James’, and the author and editor of several learned works.
A monument of free stone was erected over the vault in Bunhill fields,
where his body was laid, on which the following Latin Epitaph was
inscribed, drawn up by his old friend Mr. Thomas Gilbert, and which still
remains in fine preservation.
453
JOHANNES OWEN, S. T. P.
Agro Oxoniensi Oriundus;
Patre insogni Theologo Theologus ipse Insignior;
Et seculi hujus Insignissimis annumerandus:
Communibus Humaniorum Literarum Suppetiis,
Mensura parum Coramuni, Instructus,
Omnibus, quasi bene Ordinata Ancillarum Serie,
Ab illo jussis suae Famulari Theologiae:
Theologia Polemicae, Practicae, et quam vocant Casuum
(Harum enim Omnium, quae magis sua habenda erat, ambigitur)
In illa, Viribus plusquam Herculeis, serpentibus tribus,
Aiminio, Socino, Cano, Venenosa Strinxit guttura:
In illa suo prior, ad verbi Amussim, Expertus Pectore,
Universam Sp. Seti. Œconomian Aliis tradidit:
Et, missis Caeteris, Coluit ipse, Sensitque,
Beatam quam scripsit, cum Deo Communionem:
In terris Viator comprehensori in caelis proximus:
In Casuum Theologia, Singulis Oraculi instar habitus;
Quibus Opus erat, et copia, Consulendi;
Scriba ad Regnum Caelorum usqueqoque institutus;
Multis privatos infra Parietes, a Suggesto Pluribus,
A Prelo omnibus, ad eundem scopum collineantibus,
Pura Doctrinae Evangelicae Lampas Praeluxit;
Et sensim, non sine aliorum, suoque sensu,
Sic praelucendo Periit,
Assiduis Infirmitatibus Obsiti,
Morbis Creberrimus Impetiti,
Durisque Laboribus potissimum Attriti, Corporis,
(Fabricae, donec ita Quassatae, Spectabilis) Ruinas,
Deo ultra Fruendi Cupida, Deseruit;
 Die, a Terrenis Protestatibus, Plurimis facto Fatali;
llli, A Coelesti Numine, felici reddito;
Mensis Scilicet Augusti XXIV Anno a Partu Virgineo.
M.DC.LXXXIII Ætat. LXVII §.
454
Translation:
JOHN OWEN, D.D.,
Born in the County of Oxford,
The son of an eminent Minister,
Himself more eminent.
And worthy to be enrolled
Among the first Divines of the age.
Furnished with human literature
In all its kinds,
And in all its degrees,
He called forth all his knowledge
In an orderly train
To serve the interests of Religion,
And minister in the Sanctuary of his God.
In Divinity, practic, polemic, and casuistic.
He excelled others, and was in all, equal to himself.
The Arminian, Socinian, and Popish errors,
Those Hydras, whose contaminated breath,
And deadly poison infested the Church,
He, with more than Herculean labour.
Repulsed, vanquished, and destroyed.
The whole economy of redeeming grace,
Revealed and applied by the Holy Spirit,
He deeply investigated and communicated to others;
Having first felt its divine energy.
According to its draught in the Holy Scriptures,
Transfused into his own bosom.
Superior to all terrene pursuits.
He constantly cherished, and largely experienced.
That blissful communion with Deity,
He so admirably describes in his writings.
While on the road to Heaven
His elevated mind
Almost comprehended
Its full glories and joys.
When he was consulted
On cases of conscience
His resolutions contained
The wisdom of an Oracle.
He was a scribe every way instructed
In the mysteries of the kingdom of God.
In conversation, he held up to many,
In his public discourses, to more,
In his publications from the press, to all,
Who were set out for the celestial Zion,
 The effulgent lamp of evangelical truth
To guide their steps to immortal glory.
While he was thus diffusing his divine light,
With his own inward sensations,
And the observations of his afflicted friends,
His earthly tabernacle gradually decayed,
Till at length his deeply sanctified soul,
Longing for the fruition of its God,
Quitted the body.
In younger age
A most comely and majestic form;
But in the latter stages of life,
Depressed by constant infirmities,
Emaciated with frequent diseases,
455
And above all, crushed under the weight
Of intense and unremitting studies,
It became an incommodious mansion
For the vigorous exertions of the spirit
In the service of its God.
He left the world on a day,
Dreadful to the Church
By the cruelties of men,
But blissful to himself
By the plaudits of his God,
655
August 24, 1683, aged 67.
Dr. Owen was tall in stature, and toward the latter part of his life, inclined
to stoop. He had a grave majestic countenance; but the expression was
sweet rather than austere. His appearance and deportment were those of
a gentleman, and therefore much suited to the situations which he was
called to fill. Several portraits of him have been executed, all of which,
though done at different periods of his life, exhibit a considerable
resemblance to each other. The engraving given in the first edition of
Palmer’s Non-conformist’s Memorial, appears to be from the earliest
painting. It is said to be taken from an original picture in the possession
of the Rev. Dr. Gifford. There is a very fine engraving by Vertue, prefixed
to the folio collection of his Sermons and Tracts, published in 1721. The
painting or drawing from which this print was taken, must have been
done toward the latter part of the Doctor’s life. The plate is a large oval, in
which he is represented in his library, supporting his gown with his left
hand. Round the margin of the plate is engraved, “Joannes Owen. S. T. P.
Decan Æd. Chr. et per Quinquenn. Vice Canc. Oxon.” In a scroll above the
oval, “Queramus Superna,” is inscribed; in a small tablet at the bottom,
his arms are inserted, and on a square pedestal supporting the whole, the
following lines, said to be by himself, occur: —
456
Umbra refert fragiles, dederunt quas cura dolorque
Relliquias, studiis assiduusque labor
Mentem humilem sacri servantem Limina veri
Votis supplicibus, qui dedit, ille vidit.
Of these lines, we have an elegant translation from the pen of Dr. Watts;
who speaks of them with great approval, and as the production of Owen
himself.
This shadow shows the frail remains
Of sickness, cares, and studious pains.
The mind in humble posture waits
At sacred truth’s celestial gates,
And keeps those bounds with holy fear,
656
While he that gave it sees it there.
The engraving prefixed to this work, is from a very fine painting done in
1656, when the Doctor was Vice-Chancellor, and in the fortieth year of his
age. Nothing is known of the painter or its history, but the proprietor has
kindly allowed it to be used for these Memoirs, as he had before to Mr.
Palmer, for the second edition of the Non-conformist’s Memorial. The
facsimile of Owen’s handwriting is taken from a letter to Baxter, written
in 1668, now in the Red Cross Street library.
From the materials contained in the preceding part of this volume, and
from the numerous works of Dr. Owen, the reader might safely be left to
form his own estimate of his general character. But as our discussions
have frequently been of a very miscellaneous nature, an attempt to bring
together the leading features of his character, as a Christian, as a minister
of the gospel, and as a writer, will form a suitable conclusion and
improvement of the whole.
457
One of the first things which appears in Owen’s religious history, and
which constituted a prominent feature in his character through life, is his
conscientious submission to the Supreme authority of the word of God.
This led him at an early period, to abandon all his hopes and wishes of
rising in the Episcopal hierarchy, and to take part with the despised and
persecuted Puritans. The same principle induced him afterwards to adopt
the sentiments of the Independents, then struggling for existence. It was
this which made him maintain his adherence to that body through all its
various fortunes, and to resist with equal perseverance and steadiness
every inducement to leave it, whether arising from the allurements of
preferment, or the temptations of adversity, “To the Law and the
Testimony,” he uniformly bowed with humble and cheerful subjection.
Where they pointed the way, he felt it his duty to follow; what they called
him to bear, he willingly sustained. The path was often rugged, the
burden heavy; but the love of Christ always smoothed the one, and
enabled him to bear the other. With a conscience alive to every precept of
the Sacred word, and a heart filled with gratitude to its Divine author, all
things were felt to be easy. And he experienced what all who imitate his
conduct will find that the path of duty, even when it leads through
tribulation, is the path of safety and comfort.
With conscientious obedience was associated the deepest humility of
disposition. Possessed of eminent talents, and great enlargement of mind
— placed in the most dignified and often envied situations — consulted,
applauded, and courted by authority, learning, and rank — he could not
be altogether unconscious of his own superiority. Yet this scarcely ever
appears.
458
There was little of pride or overbearing in his manner. The tendency of
his talents and honours to elate him, was counteracted by the deep
insight which he had into the character of God, and the interior of human
nature. He had been completely humbled by the convictions of the Divine
law. His knowledge of the gospel deepened his impressions of the
malignity of sin, and the deceitfulness of the heart. Instead of comparing
himself with others, he always examined his motives and actions by the
standard of an unalterable and perfect rule. Conscious of innumerable
imperfections which were unperceived by men, he walked before God as a
sinner, constantly dependent on sovereign mercy to cover his
transgressions, and on gracious influence to perfect his obedience. “What
have I, that I have not received,” is a sentiment which he seems
constantly to have carried in his mind.
The account given of his private manners, corresponds with the idea we
form of him from his writings. He was very affable and courteous,
familiar and sociable; the meanest persons found easy access to his
conversation and friendship. He was facetious and pleasant in his
common discourse, jesting with his acquaintances, but with sobriety and
measure; a great master of his passions, especially that of anger. He was
of a serene and even temper, neither elated with honour, credit, friends
657
or estate; nor easily depressed with troubles and difficulties.
He combined, in a manner worthy of imitation, liberal love toward all the
people of God, with firmness and attachment to his own peculiar
sentiments. He walked according to the light which he had himself
received, and loved those who minded the same things; but his
benedictions extended to all the true Israel of God.
459
He was a devoted friend to the truth, but a lover of many who did not see
every part of it as he did; and he only pitied and prayed for those who
opposed it. Like Melanchthon, he contended for unity in those truths
which are necessary to be believed, for liberty in those things which God
has left free, and for love toward all who bore the image of Christ. He was
of great moderation in his judgment, willing to think the best of all men
as far as he could; not censorious, but a lover of piety wherever it was
exhibited; not limiting Christianity to any one party, and ever
endeavouring to promote it among men of all professions. Those who
wish to cultivate the diffusive charities of Christianity, and to be “lovers of
all good men,” would do well to imbibe his spirit, and to study his
character: and those who suppose all principled attachment to distinctive
sentiments and practices must be narrow-minded bigotry, are referred to
the conduct of Owen for the reproof of their ignorance and folly. No man
could exhibit more of the blandness of affection to those who differed
from him on minor points; and no man could more sternly resist all
interference with his own sentiments, or encroachments on his own
liberty. To grant to others the same right which we exercise ourselves, is
more commonly acknowledged to be equitable in principle, than
generally reduced to practice.
Unwearied diligence in the business of the Christian profession, is
another distinguishing trait in the life of Owen. He was a passionate lover
of light and truth, especially of Divine truth. He pursued it unweariedly
through painful and wasting studies which impaired his health and
strength, and brought upon him those distempers which issued in his
death.
460
Some blamed him for this, as a sort of intemperance; but it is, says Mr.
Clarkson, the most excusable of any, and looks like a voluntary
658
martyrdom. His laborious diligence appeared in his varied learning, in
his preaching, in his writings and in his numerous and often discordant
labours. Idleness must have been utterly unknown to him. Every moment
of 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 the
acquisition and diffusion of knowledge, he found a large portion of his
earthly reward.
But that which appears most conspicuously in the character of Owen, is
the deep and constant spiritual tone of his mind. To this, all the other
qualities in his temper, and every other attainment must be made to bow.
The grand ingredient in all his practical and experimental writings, is
spirituality — in which he was superior to most of the men of his own age,
and comparatively few since have arrived at the measure of his spiritual
stature. His eminence in this grace, or rather this combination of the
graces of the Spirit, is deserving of even more attention, when we reflect
on the circumstances of his life. He was no ascetic, living far from the
haunts of men, and conversing in solitude with himself, with nature, and
with God. Nor did he spend his days in village labours, amidst a rustic
population, “far from the madding crowd’s ignoble strife.” He did not live
when “the churches had rest and were edified,” or when the Olive branch
of peace was suspended over the land. He did not study how he might
most quietly creep through the world, and obtain an unperceived
dismission from its ills.
461
His circumstances, and “manner of life,” were the very reverse of these.
He mixed much in the world, moved even among the great of the earth,
and often stood before the principalities and powers of the land. Many of
his days were spent amidst the noise of camps, the bickerings of party,
and the heat of controversy. His country was convulsed by internal wars
and religious animosities; and the churches of Christ were either agitated
by “diverse and strange doctrines,” or called to endure “a great fight of
afflictions.” In all these circumstances, the soul of Owen remained
unmoved. “In the land of peace, and in the swellings of Jordan,” it
persevered in its undeviating spiritual career. Superior to the influence of
external things, his pursuits and feelings often exhibit an extraordinary
contrast with his situation. While governing the contending spirits of
Oxford, surrounded by the turbulent elements of the commonwealth, and
discussing the intricacies of the Arminian and Socinian debates, he wrote
on the Mortification of Sin, and on Communion with God. While
struggling with oppression, and sometimes concealing himself for safety,
he produced his Exposition of the 130th Psalm, and his work on the
Hebrews. When racked with the stone, and “in deaths oft,” he composed
his Defence of Evangelical Churches, and his Meditations on the Glory of
Christ. The change of subject, or of circumstances, appears to have
effected little change on his spirits, or on the state of his mind.
The secret of this enviable attainment is certainly to be found in the
extraordinary measure of Divine influence which he enjoyed. This
produced a life of faith, of self-denial, and of heavenly tranquillity. When
he describes the mortification of sin, it was what he himself daily
practised. When he exhibits the nature and excellencies of communion
with God, we have a view of his own enjoyments.
462
When he enforces the grace and duty of spiritual-mindedness, he
illustrates what he daily loved and sought. His mouth spoke from the
abundance of his heart, and what he had tasted and felt himself, he
desired to communicate to others. “He set the Lord always before him;”
Psa 16.8 which delivered him from the fear of man, and enabled him to act
the part of a faithful minister of Christ. When contending for the faith,
however, he remembered that the servant of the Lord must not strive, but
“in meekness instruct those who oppose themselves.” 2Tim 2.25 When
surrounded by the “pomps and vanities of the world,” he thought of their
fading nature, and on the superior glory of the “better and more enduring
inheritance.” Heb 10.34 When struggling with the tribulations of the
kingdom, he rejoiced in the rest that remains for the people of God. When
exposed to the strife of tongues, and reviled by unreasonable and wicked
men, he comforted himself with the words of his Lord: “Blessed are you
when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil
against you falsely, for my name’s sake.” Mat 5.11 When fainting with
weakness, and dissolving in death, the thoughts of heaven and of him
who occupies its throne filled him with “joy unspeakable and full of
glory.” 1Pet 1.8
These were the grand principles and springs of his feelings and conduct.
Spirituality of mind was his life and his peace. After Owen, let no man
find a reason for the lack of it in the supposed peculiarity or difficulty of
his circumstances. Let not public life be an apology for a worldly spirit.
Let not prosperity excuse pride, or adversity depression. Let not the
contumelies of reproach justify a spirit of rancour, nor controversy be
considered as necessarily incompatible with the meekness and gentleness
of Christ.
463
He seems to have been intended as a specimen of what the grace of God
can do for an uninspired individual, to encourage others to emulate his
virtues, and to be followers of his patience and his faith. It would be
wrong to refer to him as an authority; it would be sinful to clothe him
with perfection; but if respect is due to Christian excellence, and
enlightened sanctified obedience is entitled to esteem, then the character
of Owen demands the veneration of all the people of God.
As a Minister of Christ, his character and qualifications stand eminently
high. Of his learning, knowledge of the Scriptures, and piety, the grand
requisites of the gospel ministry, it is scarcely necessary to say anything,
after what has been brought forward. The languages of the cross were
familiar to him as his mother tongue. To this his adversaries bear
testimony. “He was,” says Wood, “a person well-skilled in the tongues,
Rabbinical learning, and Jewish rites and customs.” Those who want
further evidence, have only to refer to his Theologumena, and his work
on the Hebrews. We may still say something about the use he made of his
superior advantages as a public teacher, and the pastor of a Christian
church.
His talents as a public speaker were of the first order. His voice was
strong, but not noisy; sweet, but exceedingly manly, with a certain sound
of authority in it. His gesture was far removed from theatrical affectation,
659
but always animated and adapted to his subject. His personal
appearance aided most powerfully the advantages of his voice, and all
were supported by a presence of mind which seldom forsook him, even in
the most trying circumstances.
464
“His personage,” says Wood, who knew him at Oxford, “was proper and
handsome, and he had a very graceful behaviour in the pulpit; an
eloquent elocution; a winning and insinuating deportment. And by the
persuasion of his oratory, in conjunction with some other outward
advantages, he could move and wind the affections of his admiring
660
auditory, almost as he pleased.” He seldom used notes.
“He had an admirable facility in discoursing on any subject pertinently and decently; and could
better express himself extempore, than others with premeditation. He was never at a loss for
lack of language, a happiness few can pretend to; and this he could show in the presence even of
the highest persons in the nation. He thus showed that he had the command of his learning. His
vast reading and experience were hereby made useful in resolving doubts, clearing obscurities,
661
and healing breaches which sometimes seemed incurable.”
His published discourses are far from unfavourable specimens of his
pulpit talents. Those redundancies of which we complain in reading,
must have been more tolerable in their delivery. Though diffuse and
generally prolix, he is often energetic. And considering the state of the
language at the time, and his careless habits of composition, it is
surprising that so many eloquent and touching passages should be found
in them. Usefulness, however — rather than display or effect — was the
great object of all his public labours. He preached for eternity —
Ambitious, not to shine or to excel,
But to treat justly, what he loved so well.
465
By this rule, therefore, all his pulpit compositions must be tried. He
considered the state and circumstances of his hearers, and endeavoured
to adapt his instructions to them. As a good steward, he studied rightly to
divide the word of truth, and to give to all the members of the family of
God their due portion.
“By him, the violated law speaks out
Its thunders; and by him, In strains as sweet
As ever angels use, the gospel whispers peace.
He ‘stablishes the strong, restores the weak.
Reclaims the wanderer, binds the broken heart.
And, arm’d himself in panoply complete
Of heavenly temper, furnishes with arms
Bright as his own, and trains by every rule
Of holy discipline, to glorious war.
The sacramental host of God’s Elect.”
His attention to the church, so far as we are now capable of judging,
seems to have been very exemplary. The Catechisms which he published
to aid the young and the ignorant, the discourses which he addressed to
the church on particular occasions, the short addresses which he
delivered at private meetings, on practical and experiential subjects, and
those which he made at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, are
specimens of the manner in which he discharged the functions of his
office; and of his anxiety that he might be found faithful to the trust
committed to him. He prescribed two things to himself, for his regulation
in the work of the ministry: “To impart those truths of whose power, he
had in some measure a real experience, and to press those duties which
present occasions, temptations, and other circumstances rendered
662
necessary to be attended to.” He exemplified in himself, the correct
and ample view which he gives of the duty of Pastors in his work on the
Nature of the Gospel Church — the fifth chapter of which ought most
seriously to be considered by all who occupy this important office.
466
As many persons of rank and fortune were members of his church, the
Doctor’s circumstances, former connexions, and superior understanding,
with his eminent attainments as a Christian, particularly suited him for
the management of such a body. He knew how to combine dignity of
deportment as a gentleman, and superiority as a scholar, with the
meekness and gentleness becoming the servant of his brethren for
Christ’s sake. “His conversation was not only advantageous for its
pleasantness and obligingness; but there was in it that which made it
desirable to great persons, natives and foreigners, and that [desire was]
663
by so many, that few could have what they desired.”
His influence among the Non-conformists, and particularly among his
brethren of the Congregational body, was very extensive. It is needless to
recapitulate the circumstances which naturally promoted this. He
outlived most of the generation of Independents who took part in the civil
commotions. He was looked up to by his brethren, both near and at a
distance, on all occasions of public difficulty — and from his connexions,
he could be of more service in those circumstances than any other
individual. He was consulted by his brethren in the ministry when they
were perplexed about the path of duty; and churches also applied for the
assistance of his counsel and advice when differences occurred in them
664
which they found it difficult to settle. Thus his usefulness must have
extended greatly beyond the sphere of his personal labours.
467
But it is as a writer that Dr. Owen has been most useful, and is now most
generally known. Having so often had occasion to speak of his
publications, it cannot be necessary now, to go into any details respecting
them. But a general observation or two may still be made, on his faults
and his merits as an author. His chief deficiency is to be found in his
style. His sentences are frequently long, perplexed, and encumbered with
adjectives, often carelessly selected.
“Accustomed to dictate his ideas, he surveys the stores of a mind rich in knowledge; and
perceiving clearly the leading truth which he meant to illustrate, he brings forward a long series
of thoughts, all bearing on the subject. The associations which linked them together in his mind,
were probably most natural; but these thoughts were perhaps not all requisite at the time —
parentheses frequently occur, and the passage becomes perplexed. He had neither leisure nor
inclination to revise and retrench; perhaps though he had made the attempt, he was not
qualified to render his writings much more acceptable by improvements in style. In general,
however, it is not difficult to perceive his meaning. And when the sentence is intricate, a little
665
attention will commonly enable the reader to disentangle the several clauses.”
This is, perhaps, the best apology that can be offered for the obvious
defects in the compositions of Owen. It may also be added, that even his
own editions of his writings are, in general, most carelessly printed.
Almost no attention has been paid to the punctuation, and every
subsequent edition has adopted and added to the blunders of the
preceding.
468
The language too, when he wrote, had not attained that classical purity
and neatness at which it arrived in the beginning of the following century.
I am doubtful, however, whether Owen would have studied it, though it
had. He was inexcusably indifferent to the vehicle of his thoughts. Had he
written less, and paid more attention to the pruning and arranging of his
sentiments and language, he would doubtless have been more useful. But
to all ornament in theological writing, he was an enemy on principle.
“Know reader that you have to deal with a person who, provided his words but clearly express
the sentiments of his mind, entertains a fixed and absolute disregard of all elegance and
666
ornaments of speech. For, ‘Dicite Pontifices, in sacris quid facit aurum?’
In my opinion, indeed, someone who in a theological contest would please himself with a display
of rhetorical flourishes, would derive no further advantage from it, but that his head adorned
with magnificent garlands and pellets, would fall a richer victim to the strokes of the learned.”
667

But it is not of the lack of tinsel and glitter that we complain against
Owen; it is of simplicity and condensation. Most readers murmur against
his prolixity and heaviness: and though the labour is repaid when
persevered in, still, it might have been better, if this exercise of self-denial
had been unnecessary. How different is his style from the chaste and
flowing 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 to
attract; but its contents are more valuable than rubies.
469
Perhaps no theological writer of the period was better known, and among
a large class of Christians so greatly respected. His Latin works extended
his fame on the Continent, and led to the translation of several of his
English productions, or induced foreign divines to learn the language, so
that they might enjoy the benefit of them. Many travelled into England to
see and converse with him; many also were the letters which he received
from learned persons abroad; but which unfortunately cannot now be
recovered. Among these correspondents was the celebrated Anna Maria
Schurmann, whose letters it would have been most gratifying to possess;
668
but they also are lost.
The influence of Owen’s works in forming or directing the religious
opinions, not only of his own age, but of the succeeding, was doubtless
very great. Of this, the price which his larger performances continue to
bring, and the numerous editions and abridgements of his various
writings still published, are alone sufficient proofs. Among the
Dissenters, they have always been standard books; and the evangelical
party in the Established Churches now equally respect them. Those of his
works which continue most popular, are all on the most important
subjects. And from the extent in which they have been read, the amount
of good which they have effected, will never be ascertained in this world.
I do not know that Owen ought to be considered an original writer. His
works do not contain any important discoveries in theological science, or
any great novelty of illustration. He seldom diverges from the common
path trod by Calvinistic writers. This is noted by Clarkson in his Funeral
Sermon:
470
“It is usual with persons of extraordinary parts, to straggle from the common road and affect
novelty, though thereby they lose the best company; as though they could not appear eminent
unless they march alone. But this great person did not affect singularity. They were old truths
 that he endeavoured to defend, those which were delivered by the first Reformers, and owned by
the best divines of the Church of England.”
Indeed, novelty in Christianity is not to be expected, nor perhaps should
it be desired. A passage of Scripture may receive a new interpretation; an
argument may be placed in a stronger light; a doctrine or a duty may be
enforced by more powerful or more suitable reasonings — but the great
truths which constitute the foundation of faith and practice, must ever
remain the same.
As a controversial writer, Owen is generally distinguished for calmness,
acuteness, candour, and gentlemanly treatment of his opponents. He
lived during a stormy period, and often experienced the bitterest
provocation; but he very seldom lost his temper. He often handled the
arguments of his adversaries very roughly; but he always saved their
persons and feelings as much as possible Most of them were obliged to
acknowledge this. Wood declares that “he was one of the fairest and most
genteel of the writers who appeared against the Church of England;
handling his adversaries with far more civil, decent, and temperate
language than many of his fiery brethren — and confining himself wholly
to the cause, without the unbecoming mixture of personal slanders and
reflections.” Stillingfleet acknowledges that he “treated him with civility
and decent language.” Henry Dodwell admits, “He was of a better temper
than most of his brethren.” “Dr. Owen,” says John Humfrey, “is a person
whose name I honour for his worth, learning, and comprehensive parts;
and one in whom there was more of a gentleman as to his deportment,
than any Divine I ever knew among us.”
471
And even Richard Baxter, his frequent and troublesome opponent, bears
honourable testimony to his character.
“I do not doubt,” he says, “that he was a man of rare parts and worth. That Book of Communion
is an excellent Treatise; and his great volumes on the Hebrews all show his great and eminent
parts. It was his strange error if he thought that freedom from a Liturgy would have made most
or many ministers like himself — as free, and fluent, and copious of expression. In recent times,
he would never have been so long Dean of Christ Church; so oft Vice-Chancellor of Oxford; so
highly esteemed in the army, and with the persons then in power — if his extraordinary parts
had not been known. If this excellent man had one mistake, he was yet in recent years of more
complying mildness, and sweetness, and peaceableness than ever before, or than many others. I
do not doubt that his soul is now with Christ, where there is no darkness, no mistakes, no
669
separation of Christ’s members from one another.”
These are honourable testimonies, especially the last. If controversy had
been always carried on in the spirit of Owen, it would not have been that
baneful thing which it has so generally proved — till every book bearing a
controversial title, is the object of disgust to many who might be much
benefitted by reading both sides of a question. In this respect, most
modern writers have a great advantage over those who wrote in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
472
There is, however, some danger of theological politeness becoming
670
unhealthy. The disposition to please and to compliment, may be
carried too far. The flattering adulation addressed by Watson to Gibbon,
and the literary correspondence between Robertson and Hume, induce a
suspicion that these distinguished writers, though they appeared as
combatants on a public arena, were after all, not of radically different
sentiments. To abuse and vilify on the pretence of defending truth with
spirit, and to tamely surrender its interests, from a desire to stand well
with its enemies, are very different things, and ought to be forever
distant.
By far the greatest portion of Owen’s writings are controversial. This
arose, not so much from the warlike disposition of the man, as from his
circumstances. The Arminian, Socinian, Popish, Episcopalian, and
Independent debates, occupied his attention, and were the subjects of his
elaborate illustration. They were all deeply interesting then; and none of
them have become altogether uninteresting since his death. One thing
appears prominent in all his productions of this class: his strong desire to
give them a practical direction, and to render them as useful as possible
to his opponents and readers. His appeals to the conscience and the
heart, and his constant reference to the good or evil tendency of
particular sentiments, are calculated to improve the dispositions, as well
as to enlighten the understanding. What good end is gained by silencing
or triumphing over an adversary, if he is not convinced? If it is evident
that a victory is secured at the expense of exciting the malevolent
propensities of human nature, then it calls for humiliation rather than
boasting. Men sometimes write in such a manner, as if it were their object
to run down an opponent, rather than to convince or instruct him; and to
excite hatred toward his person, as much as dislike for his opinions.
473
Owen was repeatedly the object of this treatment; but nothing which ever
fell from his pen retaliated. The united voice of the Christian Republic
should be raised against such unprincipled conduct, till the very attempt
becomes hazardous to the character or the cause to which it may belong.
As an expository writer, I have spoken of Owen at large in my account of
his Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is as a practical, and
especially as an experiential writer, that Owen is most generally known,
and for which he enjoys the greatest popularity — and it must be allowed
that this is the department in which he chiefly excels. Here he was
eminently at home. Possessed of the most accurate and extensive views of
the whole scheme of Redemption, of a singularly spiritual mind, and of a
high degree of devotional ardour, he enters into the minutest details of
the Christian character with the utmost familiarity; and traces all its
lineaments and graces with the hand of a master. He is never so taken up
with the ornament or drapery, as to daub “The Christian face divine;” nor
in exhibiting the countenance and the figure, is there ever anything
distorted or disproportioned. Spiritual life is the vital energy which
pervades the morality and the practice recommended by Owen. It is not
the abstraction of a mystical devotion, like that of Fenelon or Law; nor is
it the enthusiastic raptures of a Zinzendorf — but it is the evangelical
piety of Paul, and the heavenly affection of John. For every practice,
mortification, and feeling, Owen assigns a satisfactory reason, because it
is a scriptural reason. The service which he recommends, is uniformly a
reasonable service; and to every required exertion, he brings an adequate
and constraining motive.
474
In examining the practical writings of such men as Hall, and Taylor, and
Tillotson, we miss that rich vein of evangelical sentiment, and that
constant reference to the living principle of Christianity, which are never
lost sight of in Owen. They abound in excellent directions, in rich
materials for self-examination, and self-government; but they do not
state with sufficient accuracy the connexion between gracious influence,
and its practical results, from which all that is excellent in human
conduct must proceed. They appear as the anatomists of the skin and the
extremities; Owen is the anatomist of the heart. “He dissects it with
remarkable sagacity, tracing out its course and turnings in every path that
leads from integrity, and marking the almost imperceptible steps which
671
conduct to atrocious sins.” While others attend to the faults or the
excellences of the outer man, he devotes himself chiefly to the sins and
enjoyments of the inner man — illustrating at the same time how they
regulate the exterior behaviour. He uniformly begins with the grand
principles of Christian action, and traces them from their source in the
sovereign love of the Redeemer, through all their windings in human
experience; examining all that retards, and noting all that promotes their
progress; showing how they fertilize the soil through which they flow with
the fruits of righteousness, and finally return in the incense of grateful
praise to the atmosphere of heaven.
Owen, Goodwin, Baxter, and Howe, were the four leading men among the
Non-conformist worthies. In assigning the first place to the subject of
these memoirs, I am not aware of being improperly influenced by my
partiality for a favourite author — a partiality which I confess has been
greatly increased by my researches into his history.
475
It is the place which I apprehend to be indisputably due to him, and
672
which the general voice of enlightened Christians has long conferred.
They were “all honourable men,” whose characters and talents would
have graced any cause. To each of them, Owen was perhaps inferior in
some prominent feature or attainment; but none of them was equal to
him on the whole, or occupied so public and important fields of labour.
Goodwin possessed his learning, but not his discernment or his public
talents. Baxter was his equal in diligence, and perhaps his superior in
acuteness and in energy; but possessed neither his learning, nor temper,
nor accuracy of sentiment. Howe was more original and philosophical;
but had less of the simplicity of Gospel doctrine, and wrote on fewer
subjects. Comparisons, however, are invidious and unnecessary. Each
filled his own station with propriety, and shone in his own circle; and all
are now enjoying together the fruits of their labours and sufferings.
476
“They were the chiefs of the mighty men,” whom God raised up “to
strengthen his kingdom for Him;” and they deserve to be held in
everlasting remembrance. Should these imperfect Memoirs of him who
occupied the first rank among them, induce any to examine his
principles, to cultivate his dispositions, and to follow his steps, then I will
not consider that I have spent my time in vain, in collecting the scanty
and widely scattered fragments of the life, writings, and connexions of
JOHN OWEN.

 APPENDIX
CONSISTING OF

NOTES, ILLUSTRATIONS, LETTERS,

etc.
FAMILY OF OWEN — p. 8.
DR. CALAMY mentions that Mr. John Singleton, pastor of the Independent
Church, which was originally formed by Philip Nye, and in which Mr.
Neal was afterwards minister, was nephew to Dr Owen. It is therefore
probable that Owen had more than one sister, though I can procure no
account of Mr. Singleton’s parents. It appears that he was educated at
Christ Church, Oxford, during the period of his Uncle’s residence in the
University; and that he lost his student’s place at the Restoration, After
this, he went to Holland and studied medicine, which he occasionally
practised. After his return, he lived with Lady Scot in Hertfordshire, and
preached to some Dissenters in Hertford. He was also at Stretton, and
Coventry, and finally removed to London, to an Old Independent Church,
in which he was pastor from 1698 to 1706. He also kept an Academy at
Hoxton and Islington. In the Britannia Rediviva, Oxon 1660, there is an
English poem by him; and one sermon in the Continuation of the
Morning Exercises, on the best way to prepare to meet God in the way of
his judgments or mercies. — (Calamy s continuation, Vol. I. p. 105 —
Wilson’s Diss. Churches, Vol. III. pp. 89, 90.)
On a black stone Pavement of Remnam Church, where William Owen was
minister (eldest brother to the Doctor), there is a Latin Inscription,
perpetuating his name. It describes him as “Humilimus Evangelii Christi
Minister.” — It mentions that he died on the 16th of the 4th month, A. D.
1660, aged 48; and also that an infant son of William died the 10th day of
the 7th month, 1654, aged 3 months. Below it are six Latin verses on the
death of the child. — (Private information.)
THE SYNOD OF DORT, p. 32.
The Synod of Dort and its proceedings occupied a considerable portion of
attention during the early part of the seventeenth century. The accounts
which have been given of it are quite varied. While I entertain no doubt,
in general, respecting the doctrinal sentiments which it maintained, I just
as firmly believe that little good resulted from its conduct and decisions.
478
These were too influenced by party politics to have weight with opposers;
and some of its proceedings and their consequences, were highly
improper. Brandt, who gives the fullest account of the Synod, was a
Remonstrant, and must therefore be read with caution. Heylin’s violent
anti-Calvinistic, and anti-Presbyterian prejudices, give a decided
colouring to all his statements respecting it, both in his Quinquarticular
history and his history of the Presbyterians. The best account, so far as it
goes, is that furnished by Hales of Eaton, who was secretary to the
English Ambassador then at the Hague. Even his letters by no means
prepossess us in the Synod’s favour. He thus introduces the last of them:
— “Our Synod goes on like a watch, the main wheels upon which the
whole business turns, are least in sight; for all things of moment, are
acted in private sessions; what is done in public, is only for show and
entertainment.” (Hales’ works, Vol. III. p. 148.) In the “Acta Synodi
Dordrechti,” published by the Synod, and the “Acta et Scripta Synodalia
Remonstrantium,” all the documents on both sides will be found. But the
former is a large folio, and the latter a thick quarto, which few have either
time or inclination to consult. An abstract of the former was published in
English in 1818, by the Rev. Thomas Scott; on which a very smart critique
appeared in the Eclectic Review, for Dec. 1819; which well deserves the
attention of the reader.
WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY, — p. 72.
A DISPASSIONATE and impartial History of the Assembly of Divines at
Westminster, is yet a desideratum; and as Lord Hailes observes (Remarks
on the History of Scotland, p. 236.) “would be a work curious and useful:
it is probable, however, that we shall never see such a work; for the writer
must be one who neither hates, nor contemns, nor admires that
Assembly.” I do not know that there is so much ground for despondency
on this subject as his Lordship expresses. The materials for such a work
are very ample. Lord Hailes mentions a Journal of the Assembly, drawn
up by Mr. George Gillespie, one of the Scotch Commissioners, among the
Wodrow MSS. It begins 2d Feb. 1644, and proceeds to the 14th May,
1645. There is then a blank. It recommences 4th September 1645, and
proceeds to 25th Oct. 1645. Baillie’s Journals and Letters contain much
important and authentic information. The printed pamphlets of the
period are exceedingly numerous, and many of them curious. The lives of
the Members of the Assembly also throw light on its sentiments and
proceedings. It is generally reported that the minutes of the Assembly are
deposited in the Red Cross Street Library; but I suspect this is a mistake.
Dr. Thomas Goodwin, one of the Dissenting brethren, is said to have left
notes of its transactions in 14 or 15 volumes. — (Palmer’s Non-Con. Mem.
vol. i. p. 239.) What has become of these volumes does not appear, unless
they are contained in the MS. in the Red Cross Street Library, supposed
to be the minutes of the Assembly. This MS. is in three thick volumes
folio, which appear to have been bound uniformly, about the beginning of
the last century.
479
On turning them over, they appeared to me to each contain four or five
distinct series of notes; corresponding with the number of the volumes of
Goodwin; nor did they seem to be written in the form of minutes. As my
time was limited, and my object in visiting the Library of a different
nature, I did not pursue the examination; but the Librarian, Mr. Morgan,
promised to follow up my suggestion. It is worth inquiring whether the
minutes of the Assembly are not in the Library of Sion College.
Very different accounts have been given of the Assembly. Baxter’s and
Neal’s opinions of it are highly favourable; those of Clarendon and other
high church writers, quite the opposite. Lord Hailes in the work already
quoted, gives a curious extract from Gillespie’s MS. of the Assembly’s
statement of its own sins, with a view to a solemn fast. “The sins of the
Assembly in nine points. 1. Neglecting attendance in the Assembly,
though the affairs are so important; late coming, 2. Absence from the
prayers. 3. Reading and talking in time of debates. 4. Neglect of
committees. 5. Some speak too much, others too little. 6. Indecent
behaviour. 7. Unseemly language and heats upon it. 8. Neglect of trying
ministers. 9. Members of Assembly drawing on parties, or being
frightened with needless jealousies.” p. 239. Milton’s account of the
Assembly is exceedingly severe, and evidently written under strong
feelings of irritation, excited by the Assembly’s hostility to religious
liberty. Milton’s History of England, quoted in Symmond’s Life of
Milton, p. 401.
PAMPHLETS ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, —
p. 100.
From the breaking out of the civil wars, till the Restoration of Charles II,
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 its
supporters into contempt. A few of those which treat the subject
seriously, I have noted in the text; one or two of the other description, I
will introduce here, for the amusement of the reader. There is now before
me, “A sacred Decretal, or hue and cry from his superlative holiness. Sir
Simon Synod, for the apprehension of reverend Young Martin Mar Priest.
In which are displayed many witty synodian conceits, both pleasant and
commodious.” The centre of the title page is occupied by a Bull sitting in
an arm chair writing, and tossing the figure of persecution upon his
horns, into a fire burning at his back. At the bottom, it is said to be
printed in “Europe, by Martin Claw Clergy, printer to the Reverend
Assembly of Divines for Bartholomew Bang Priest, and are to be sold at
his shop in Toleration Street, at the sign of the subjects liberty, right
opposite to Persecuting Court.” It is a violent attack on the Westminster
Assembly’s hostility to toleration. Of the same nature is another
production from the same quarter.
“The arraignment of Mr. Persecution, presented to the consideration of the House of Commons,
and to all the common people of England. In which he is indicted, arraigned, convicted, and
condemned of enmity against God, and all goodness, of treasons, rebellion, bloodshed, etc. and
sent to the place of execution. In the prosecution of which, the Jesuitical designs, and secret
encroachments of his defendants, Sir Simon Synod, and the John of all Sir Johns, Sir John
Presbyter, upon the liberty of the subject are detected,” etc.
480
The trial is managed with some ingenuity, and the pamphlet must have
stung dreadfully at the time. “Certain additional reasons to those
presented in a letter by the Ministers of London, to the Assembly of
Divines at Westminster, Jan. 1st, 1645; of like power and force, against
the toleration of Independency.” These additional reasons are all ironic;
but some of them are as deserving of attention, as those which the
London ministers had drawn up against tolerating the Independents. The
letter of the London Ministers, opened the eyes of many to the designs of
the Presbyterians, and produced a number of answers and replies.
“Toleration justified, and Persecution condemned, in an Examination of
the London Minister’s Letter,” is a sensible joco-serious pamphlet, which
was replied to in “Anti-Toleration, by a well-wisher of peace and truth,”
1646. It was followed by “Groans for Liberty, presented from the
Presbyterian (formerly Non-conforming) brethren, reported the ablest
and 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 assigned
why the prelates should tolerate Presbyterians, and shows that they
equally prove that the Presbyterians should tolerate others. On the back
of the title, it is said,
“If any are ignorant who this SMECTYMNUUS is,
S tephen M arshal,
E dmund C alamy,
T homas Y oung, can tell you.”
M athew N ewcomen,
W illiam S purstow,
Saltmarsh was perhaps wild enough in some of his doctrinal sentiments;
but was quite sober on the subject of liberty of conscience, as this and
some other of his productions on the same topic prove.
ADVOCATES OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, — p. 106.
Among the friends and advocates of religious liberty, I ought to have
introduced the name of William Penn, the Quaker; though he did not
appear so early as those whom I have mentioned, both by his writings
and his sufferings, he powerfully contributed to promote the glorious
cause. While in Newgate in 1670m he published an admirable pamphlet
entitled, “The great cause of liberty of conscience, once more briefly
debated and defended, etc.” in which — from reason, scripture, and
antiquity — he defends unanswerably the immutable rights of conscience.
The last sentence of his address “to the supreme authority of England”
deserves to be quoted:
481
“But if this fair and equal offer [of a free conference] does not find a place with you on which to
rest its foot much less that it should bring us back the olive branch of Toleration — we heartily
embrace and bless the providence of God; and in his strength, resolve by patience to out-weary
PERSECUTION ’, and by our constant sufferings, seek to obtain a victory, more glorious than any our
673
adversaries can achieve by all their cruelties. Vincit qui patitur.”
With the unbroken spirit of a Christian and an Englishman, he concludes
the pamphlet by declaring —
“If, after all we have said, this short discourse should not be credited nor answered in any of its
sober reasons and requests, but sufferings should be the present lot of our inheritance from this
generation, let it be known to them all, THAT MEET WE MUST, and MEET we cannot but encourage all
to do, (whatever hardships we sustain) in God’s name and authority, who is Lord of hosts, and
King of kings; at the revelation of whose righteous judgment, and glorious tribunal, mortal men
 shall give an account of the deeds done in the body.”
His iniquitous trial at the Old Bailey, for assembling at the doors of the
meeting-house in Gracious Street, produced a powerful sensation in the
country. He published an account of this trial, and also that of Rudyard
and Moor, while in Newgate. Acting on the principle which he avowed in
the passages we quoted, he and his friends ultimately tired out the
persecuting spirit of the government, and procured for themselves more
ample privileges than any other class of Dissenters enjoyed. It ought to be
mentioned, to the honour of Penn, that he established in that district of
America which bears his name, and which he received in lieu of debts due
by the crown, those liberal principles of civil and religious liberty for
which he had so nobly contended and suffered in his native land.
ORIGIN OF TOLERATION AMONG INDEPENDENTS, — p. 109.
Long after I had written what appears in the text, on the origin of the
tolerating principles held by Independents, I met with Laing’s Account of
that Body, in his history of Scotland. His historical notices are, on the
whole, not incorrect. But though his views of the principles of the sect are
more liberal and enlightened than those of Hume and Smith, they
participate in that irreligious spirit which pervades the writings of the two
more distinguished philosophers. On its tolerating principles, he explains
himself (to a certain extent) in the same manner that I have done. He
mentions in a note, that “toleration is the incessant reproach, re-echoed
by Baillie, Rutherford, Edwards, and every writer against the
Independents. The Presbyterian, having once been persecuted, naturally
became a persecuting religion upon its triumph; a general principle from
which the Independents form a singular and honourable exception.” —
(Vol i. p 273.) In the text he says,
“the most distinguished attribute, and in that age, the reproach of their sect, was religious
toleration. Without assuming to themselves any temporal authority, they denied the right of the
civil magistrate to interpose in the religious and speculative opinions of mankind.
482
Satisfied with the spiritual powers of admonition and excommunication — of which the one was
more freely, and the other more sparing and temperately administered — they were the first
Christians who adopted the principles of toleration in adversity, and maintained them during
the prosperity of their sect. Their mind, says a philosophical historian, set afloat in the wide sea
of inspiration, could confine itself within no certain limits. And the same variations in which an
enthusiast indulged himself, he was apt (by a natural train of thinking) to permit in others. —
(Hume). It is difficult to resist a solution so truly ingenious. But its authority is impaired by an
obvious consideration: that amidst the revolutions and incessant fluctuations of religion, no
system has yet inspired that extreme zeal, of which mild and tolerating principles are the natural
 result. A better reason is contained in the peculiar form of their ecclesiastical institution. They
had searched their Scriptures for the earliest model of the primitive church. But from the loose
texture and imperfect union of Independent congregations, persecution was impracticable.
When expelled from one congregation, the offender might obtain easy access to another, or
establish a separate church of his own. The civil authority could neither be appropriated, nor
lent occasionally, to these different churches. And when the necessity of toleration was once
acknowledged, its benefits were soon recommended by an influx of proselytes from every
persecuted or afflicted sect.” — (Vol. i. pp. 273, 274.)
After noting the sentiments of Smith, which we have quoted, he thus
concludes;
“From the western shores of the Atlantic to the banks of the Ohio, the citizen chooses his own
altar. The sect provides for its own pastor, and from Independent congregations — connected by
no discipline nor cherished by the partial support of the state — a harmonious moderation is the
universal result.” — (Ibid. p. 278.)
Without agreeing to every sentiment in the above extract, it is clear that,
so far as Laing had the opportunity or the capacity of judging, his opinion
— as to the origin of the doctrine of religious liberty — is not materially
different from what we have contended for. I am fully satisfied that it is to
be found in the peculiar constitution of the Independent Churches; but in
a part of that constitution with which Laing was unacquainted. It arises,
not from the looseness of their texture and the imperfection of their
union — for these are neither so loose nor so imperfect as many suppose
— but from the principles noted in the text, and the high importance
which they attach to the right and exercise of PRIVATE JUDGMENT in all
religious matters. The detached and separate nature of their ecclesiastical
polity, however, must prevent their ever being objects of jealousy to any
civil government, and from being formidable to one another, or to other
religious professions. And, it is supposed, a part of its excellence consists
in this.
I am aware that it may be said, the Independents, during the period of
our history, were never so completely possessed of power, or so
established in the country, as to be able to oppress others. To this, the
answer is easy. Granting that is true, it is clear that, with the degree of
power and influence which they possessed, they still continued to
advocate the rights of conscience.
483
Besides, during the Commonwealth the Independents were as fully
established as the nature of their system allows. They were protected in
the profession and propagation of their sentiments, and all civil privileges
and rights were enjoyed by them. More than this, they never sought; and
anything beyond this would have been a departure from their
fundamental principles, which would have been attended with evil; but
that evil would not have attached to consistent Independency.
PREACHING OF THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, — p. 116.
The preaching or exhorting of private persons, some of them in high
circumstances, and others in low, was a very common thing in the time of
the Commonwealth. Bulstrode Whitelocke, Keeper of the Great Seal of
England, Ambassador to Christina, Queen of Sweden, and a man of high
legal attainments, was not ashamed to exhort himself; and even when he
had two chaplains on board, to hear “one of the ship’s company, and in
his mariners’ habit, preach a very honest and good sermon, and much
beyond what might be expected from him.” — (Journal of the Swedish
Embassy, vol. ii. p. 133.) The conversation between the Queen of Sweden
and him, on this subject, is very curious.
“Queen. — I have been told that many officers of your army pray and preach to their soldiers. Is
that true?
Whitelocke. — Yes, Madam, it is very true. When their enemies are swearing, or debauching, or
pillaging, the officers and soldiers of the Parliament’s army are encouraging and exhorting one
another out of the Word of God, and praying together to the Lord of Hosts, for his blessing to be
with them — who has shown His approval of this military preaching, by the successes he has
given them.
Q. — That’s well. Do you use to do so too?
W. — Yes; on some occasions, in my own family; and I think it as proper for me, being the
master of it, to admonish and speak to my people when there is cause, as to be beholden to
another to do it for me, which sometimes brings the chaplain into more credit than his lord.
Q. — Do your generals and other great officers do so?
W. — Yes, Madam, very often, and very well. Nevertheless, they maintain chaplains and
ministers in their houses and regiments; and those who are godly and worthy ministers, have as
much respect, and as good provision in England, as in any place of Christendom. Yet, ‘tis the
opinion of many good men with us, that a long cassock, with a silk girdle and a great beard, do
not make a learned or a good preacher — not without gifts of the Spirit of God, and labouring in
his vineyard. And whoever studies the Holy Scriptures, and is enabled to do good to the souls of
others, and endeavours the same, is nowhere forbidden by that word, nor is it blameable. The
officers and soldiers of the Parliament’s army held it not unlawful, when they carried their lives
in their hands, and were going to risk them in the high places of the field, to encourage one
another out of His word, Who commands over all. And this had more weight and impression
with it, than any other word could have; and was never denied being made use of, except by the
popish prelates who would, by no means, allow lay people (as they call them) to gather from
there, that instruction and comfort which can be found nowhere else.
Q. — I think you preach very well, and have now made a good sermon. I assure you, I like it very
well.
W. — Madam. I shall account it a great happiness if any of my words may please you.” — (Ibid
pp. 252, 253.)
484
The practice defended by Whitelocke must be considered a proof of the
very general diffusion of religious knowledge during the Commonwealth.
It cannot be doubted that it was frequently abused; but I have just as little
doubt that it often produced good. The total incapacity, in general, of our
ambassadors and their suites, and of our general officers and common
soldiers, for such exercises — not to say their lack of love for what they
imply — is, I fear, the chief reason why such things are now considered
deserving of nothing but ridicule, as the fanatical employment of canting
hypocrites.
THE EARLY STATE OF INDEPENDENCY IN IRELAND, p. 123.
I HAVE been able to glean only a few particulars respecting the first
appearances of Independency in Ireland. Some of the Brownists are said
to have reached Ireland, and to have left some disciples there. In 1650,
Dr. Samuel Winter went over with four Parliamentary commissioners. He
relinquished a living of £400 per annum in England, for an appointment
of £100, that he might promote the interests of the Gospel in Ireland. He
was made Provost of Trinity College, which he found almost desolate and
forsaken. But under his care, it became a valuable seminary of piety and
learning. He was pastor of an Independent church in Dublin at the same
time. The Restoration drove him from the College, and from Ireland. —
(Calamy, vol ii. pp. 544, 546.) Dr. Thomas Harrison went over with Henry
Cromwell, and preached for several years in Christ Church, Dublin. He
returned to England a short time before the Restoration; but afterwards
he went back to Dublin, where he died, lamented by the whole city. Lord
Thomond used to say of him, “that he would rather hear Dr. Harrison say
grace over an egg. than hear the Bishops pray and preach.” (Ibid. vol. ii. p
122.) Mr. Stephen Charnock went over at the same time with Dr.
Harrison, and usually had persons of the greatest distinction for his
hearers. He returned about 1660. — (Noncon. Mem vol i p. 208.)
Mr. Samuel Mather also went over about the same time, and became
colleague to Dr Winter. He preached every Lord’s day morning at the
church of St Nicholas; and once in six weeks, before the Lord Deputy and
his council. Though an Independent, even Wood acknowledges he was a
man of much moderation, and civil to Episcopalians, even when he had
the power of injuring them. When the Deputy gave a commission to him
and others to displace the Episcopal clergy of the provinces of Munster
and Dublin, he declined acting, alleging that he had come to Ireland to
preach the Gospel, not to hinder others from doing it. He had previously
preached for two years in Leith. He died in Dublin in 1671 — (Ibid vol. ii
pp. 355, 357.)
485
Hugh Peters went with the army of Cromwell to Ireland, but soon
returned to England. I may be permitted to speak a little good of this
man, who has been the subject of incessant reproach, and whose
character has been loaded with every crime. He resided five years in
Salem, in New England, during which the rapid improvement made in
the place, is ascribed to him.
“The arts were introduced; a water-mill was erected; a glass-house; saltworks; the planting of
hemp was encouraged, and a regular market was established. An almanac was introduced to
direct their affairs. Commerce had unexampled glory. He formed the plan of the fishery; of the
coasting voyages; of the foreign voyages, and among many other vessels, one of 300 tons was
undertaken under his influence.” — (Holmes’ American Annals, vol. i. p 263.)
Such was his influence in Holland, where he had resided for some time,
that he raised £30 000 in it for the relief of the suffering Protestants in
Ireland. He was also a diligent and earnest solicitor for the distressed
Protestants in the valleys of Piedmont — (Ludlow, vol iii. p. (61.) These
things are not like the actions of a fool or a profligate.
“I travelled into Germany,” he says. “with that famous Scotsman, Mr. John Forbes, and for
about six years, enjoyed in him much love and sweetness; and from whom I never had anything
but encouragement, though we differed in the way of our churches. The learned Amesius
[William Ames] breathed his last into my bosom, who left his professorship in Friezland to live
with me at Rotterdam, because of my church’s independency. He was my colleague and chosen
brother to the church, where I was an unworthy pastor.” — (Peter’s Last Report of the English
wars, 1646.)
His Legacy to his daughter breathes the spirit of Christianity, and
solemnly professes his innocence of the grievous charges which were
heaped upon him. And his conduct on the scaffold fully supported the
previous heroism of his character. But Peters was a soldier, as well as a
preacher of Christianity; and for violating the principles of his Master’s
kingdom, by this improper combination, he perhaps brought on himself
the execution of his Master’s threatening: — “Those who take up the
sword shall perish by the sword.” Mat 26.52
John Rogers was pastor of a church in Dublin, of which Colonel Hewson,
the governor of Dublin, was a member. John Eyewater, and Thomas
Huggins, preachers of the Word, joined this church in 1651. (Roger’s
Tabernacle for the Sun, p. 302.) From the same book it appears that there
was a Baptist church at Waterford, which addresses a letter to the saints
in Dublin on that subject; it was signed by twelve persons. Mr. Thomas
Patient was minister of this church. He was some time co-pastor of the
Baptist church in London with Mr. Kiffin. He went over to Ireland with
General Fleetwood, and usually preached in the Cathedral. He was very
active in promoting the interests of the Baptists. Crosby thinks he was the
founder of a Baptist church in Cloughkeating, which became very
numerous. (Crosby’s Baptists, vol. iii. pp. 42, 43.) Mr. John Mureot
moved from West Kerby to Ireland, and was very useful the short time he
lived. He preached generally in Dublin, and for some time in Cork. There
he assisted at a public dispute on the subject of Baptism, in which he and
Dr. Worth were on one side, and Dr. Harding on the other. — (Murcot’s
Life, prefixed to his works.)
486
There was a church in Youghall, in which Mr. Joseph Eyres laboured for
some time; and afterwards moved to a church in Cork. — (Ibid.) Mr.
Timothy Taylor, pastor of a church at Duckenfield in Cheshire, went to
Ireland, and became pastor of a church in Carrickfergus. At the
Restoration, he removed from the parochial edifice, and preached the
Gospel in his own hired house to all who came to him. In 1668, he went to
Dublin, and became colleague, first to Mr. Samuel Mather, and at his
death, to his brother Nathaniel Mather, till his death. — (Athen. Oxon.
vol. ii. p 508.) In 1655, Claudius Gilbert, pastor of a Congregational
church in Limerick, Edward Reynolds, Min., and J. Warren, Min. etc.,
unite with Dr. Winter in a letter to Mr. Baxter, as the associated Ministers
of Christ in Ireland. — (Baxter’s own Life, part i. p. 107.) Mr. Jenner also
was pastor of a church in Tredagh. — (Ibid.) These few particulars may
perhaps induce some, whose information is more extensive than mine, to
pursue the subject, and communicate the results.
THE EARLY STATE OF INDEPENDENCY IN SCOTLAND, P 137.
In the year 1584, Robert Brown, from whom the first Independents
derived their designation, came out of the low countries into Scotland
with a number of his followers. Having taken up his residence in the
Cannongate of Edinburgh, he began to disseminate his peculiar opinions,
and to circulate writings, in which all the reformed churches were
stigmatized as unscriptural and Antichristian societies. The Court took
this rigid sectary under their protection, and encouraged him, for no
other conceivable reason than his exclaiming against the ministers, and
calling into question their authority. On his return to England, Brown
published a book into which he introduced various invectives against the
ministers and government of the Church of Scotland. — (Calderwood,
quoted by M’Crie in his Life of Melville, vol. i. p.;326.) King James, in his
Basilicon Doron, alleges that Brown, Penry, and other Englishmen had,
when in Scotland, “sown their popple,” and that “certain brain-sick, and
heady preachers” had imbibed their spirit. Although, adds Dr. M’Crie, he
could not help but know that these rigid sectaries were unanimously
opposed by the Scotch ministers, and that the only countenance which
they received was from himself and his courtiers — (Ibid. vol ii. p. 163.)
In 1591, Penry, who afterwards suffered in England, retired to Scotland
for safety, and continued there till 1693. From there he addressed two
letters to Queen Elizabeth, not couched in very courtly terms, and also
the petition for which he was executed. — (Brook’s Lives, vol. ii. p. 50. —
Paget’s Heresiography, pp 271-275.)
487
The next account we have of Independents in Scotland, brings us down to
about the year 1642.
“About this time there came in quietly to Aberdeen, one called Othro Ferrendail, an Irishman
and a skinner by trade, favoured by Mr. Andrew Cant, and by his means admitted freeman. He
was trapped for preaching at night, in some houses of the town before their families, with closed
doors, nocturnal doctrine or Brownism.” — (Spalding’s History of the Troubles in Scotland, vol.
ii pp 45, 46.)
Ferrendail was perhaps a disciple of Ainsworth’s who, according to
Hornbeck, — (Sum. Con. P. 740.) visited Ireland. Mr. Cant was one of the
ministers of Aberdeen, and more favourable to innovation than some of
his brethren. In the provincial assembly at Aberdeen, 1642, there was
“great business about Brownism lately crept into Aberdeen and other
parts.” Besides Ferrendail, William Maxwell, Thomas Pont, Gilbert
Gordon of Tilliefroskie, his wife, children, and servants, and hail family,
and John Ross, minister of Birse, were complained of. Mr. John Oswald
also, one of the ministers of Aberdeen, was thought not to dislike it. —
(Strachan, vol. ii p. 52.) Ferrendail was convinced to abjure and subscribe
the covenant, and was “received as a good Bairn” — (Ibid. 64.) The
Presbytery, however, were not satisfied with Ferrendail’s repentance, and
referred him to the General Assembly. — (Ibid 68.) “Maxwell, who was
also accused of Brownism, was a silly wheel-wright by trade; this man
was sought for, and all men forbidden from the pulpit to receive him,
which was done by our minister, Mr. William Sirachan, on Sunday the
5th of February.” — (Ibid. p. 70.) Gordon, of Tilliefroskie, was afterwards
taken on the streets of Edinburgh, and put in prison for maintaining
some points of Brownism. — (Ibid, p 102.)
The General Assembly of 1647, passed an Act prohibiting the importation
of all books and pamphlets containing Independency and Anabaptism,
and forbidding the reading of them; or harbouring any persons infected
with such errors. Presbyteries and Synods are enjoined to process those
who offend against these injunctions; and civil magistrates are
recommended to aid and assist ministers in everything to that effect.
(Acts of Assemblies from 1638 to, 649, printed in Edin., 1682.) These
were the blessed days of Presbyterian supremacy; and such was the use
which they made of their power.
The English army entering Scotland soon after this, prevented the
execution of this unjust law, and imported Independency in such a way
that it could not be resisted. Many of the officers and soldiers of the army
were preachers, and ambulatory churches existed among the troops, in
which Independency was both preached and exhibited. Nicholas Lockyer,
who accompanied the English army, published a small work on
Independency: “A little Stone out of the Mountain, or Church order
briefly opened, printed at Leith, 1652.” It has an Epistle dedicatory, dated
from Dalkeith, April 22, 1652, by Joseph Caryl, John Oxenbridge, and
Cuthbert Sydenham. It was answered by James Wood, professor of
Theology in St. Andrews — “A little Stone, pretended to be out of the
Mountain, tried and found to be a Counterfeit,” 4to. Edin. 1654.
488
From Wood’s work, it appears that some “ministers and others in
Aberdeen,” had forsaken the church, and adopted the principles of
Independency. In 1653, “A Confession of Faith of the Baptist Churches in
London,” was printed at Leith, the preface to which is dated “Leith, the
tenth of the first month, vulgarly called March, and signed by Thomas
Spenser, Alex Holmes, Thomas Powell, John Brady, in the name and by
the appointment of the Church of Christ, usually meeting at Leith and
Edinburgh.”
In July, 1652, the English Commissioners presented to the General
Assembly, “A Declaration in favour of Congregational Discipline, purity
of Communion, and Toleration;” to which the Assembly replied rather
indignantly — (Whitelocke, pp. 514, 515.) A number of the protesting
ministers seem to have been somewhat favourable to Independency;
among the chief of whom was Mr. Patrick Gillespie. An Independent was
settled in Kilbride, and another by the name of Charters in Kirkintilloch.
— (Sewel’s History of the Quakers, p, 94)
In 1659, the Presbytery of Edinburgh, published “A Testimony and
Warning against a recent Petition.” Its object was to procure the
“abolishing of all civil sanctions establishing the doctrine, discipline, and
government of this Church,” p 4. This Warning produced “Some sober
Criticisms to vindicate the Truth, and undeceive the Simple,” 1659. From
this pamphlet it appears that several persons, for dissenting from the
Church Courts, had been very cruelly and iniquitously used. Christian
Blyth, a Baptist, Mrs. Adair, Gordon of Tilliefroskie, Mr. Tayes, and Mr.
Flint, are referred to as “excommunicated, imprisoned, banished, hunted
from place to place, to the loss of all they had, and the making of their
very lives bitter,” pp 11, 12. Col. Strachan also, and Lord Swinton, Mr.
Dundas, Major Abernethy, and Captain Griffin, were treated in much the
same way according to this account, for no other crime than that of being
reckoned sectaries. It is a very excellent pamphlet, and probably written
by some of the persons who had been ill used.
These facts embrace almost everything known to me respecting the first
appearances of Independency in Scotland. With the return of the army to
England, and the Restoration, all traces of it disappeared. And the people
of Scotland were soon called to encounter more terrible calamities, from a
quarter from which they expected nothing but happiness. I offer no
commentary on the facts brought forward. Every enlightened Christian
will form a decided opinion respecting both parties, and what would have
been the probable consequences of the establishment of Presbyterian
uniformity in England.
OWEN’S SUCCESSORS IN COGGESHALL — p. 134.
His immediate successor was Constantine Jessop, son of Mr. John
Jessop, minister of Pembroke, educated at Oxford. He did not remain
long at Coggeshall, but was removed first to Wimborn, in Dorsetshire,
and then to Tyfield, in Essex, where he died in 1660. — (Brook’s Lives of
the Puritans, vol. iii. p. 375.)
489
He was succeeded by Mr. John Sams, who had been educated in New
England. The Act of Uniformity ejected him from the parish living, but he
gathered a separate church in it, of those who approved of his ministry, of
which he died pastor about 1675. — (Non-con. Mem. vol. ii. p. 191.) He
was succeeded by Mr. Robert Gouge, of Christ College, Cambridge. He
had preached and taught a school for some time at Maiden, in Essex.
From there he moved to Ipswich, where he was silenced. He laboured at
Coggeshall till he was laid aside by the decay of his intellects, but it is
uncertain in what year this took place. Mr. Thomas Browning, of Rowell,
was a member of this church in his time, and was encouraged by him to
enter into the ministry. Owen gave very important advice to him, which
he appears to have followed himself. “Study things, acceptable words will
follow” — (Ibid. vol. iii. p. 271.) Edward Bently was pastor of the church
in 1721, and died on the 9th of June, 1740, in the 60th year of his age. I do
not know what year he entered into office in Coggeshall, or whether there
was anyone between Mr. Gouge and him. Mr. John Farmer, brother to
the celebrated Hugh Farmer, was ordained pastor, March 28th, 1739. His
mother was daughter of Mr. Hugh Owen, one of the ejected ministers;
and it is probable that, as his brother did, he received his classical
education from Dr. Charles Owen, of Warrington, and prosecuted his
academic studies afterwards under Dr. Doddridge. In 1730, he was
chosen assistant to Mr. Rawlin, at Fetter lane, and continued in that
situation till he moved to Coggeshall. He published a volume of Sermons
in 1756, which possess some merit, but are now little known. In
consequence of a mental derangement, he was rendered incapable of any
stated ministerial service, and retired to London several years before his
death. He is said to have been a very excellent Greek scholar. — (Life of
Hugh Farmer, and Wilson’s Hist. of Diss. Churches, vol. iii. p. 457.)
It is uncertain in what year, Mr. Henry Petto succeeded Mr. Farmer; but
he died in 1776 or 1777. Mr. Mordecai Andrews was ordained about 1774,
and died at Southampton, in September, 1799. Mr. J. Fielding went to
Coggeshall in 1797. In his time, a very unpleasant difference took place
between the church and him, in consequence of which some pamphlets
were published; — the church books were lost, which has prevented me
from obtaining more particular information about the state of the church
during the last century; and Mr. Fielding was finally necessitated to
retire. Mr. Algernon Wells from Hoxton academy, went to Coggeshall in
1818, and was ordained to the pastoral office on the 7th of April, 1819.
The church and congregation are again in a prosperous and promising
state.
490
STATE OF OXFORD DURING THE EARLY PART OF LAST
CENTURY, p. 180.
The testimony of Gibbon respecting the state of Oxford, which I quoted in
a note, may appear to some to be very strong, and therefore requires
support. The following passage from Archdeacon Blackburn’s
Confessional, is sufficient evidence of the little attention paid to religious
instruction both in Oxford and Cambridge. “At the universities, the point
for the first four years is to qualify themselves for their first degree, which
they may take with the utmost honour and credit, without ever having
seen the inside of a Bible.” (Confessional, p. 391.) Dr. Busby offered to
found two Catechistical lectures, with an endowment of £100 per annum
each, for instructing undergraduates in the rudiments of the Christian
religion, provided they should all be obliged to attend. But this condition,
and of course the lectures, were rejected by both universities. (Ibid. p.
392.) Dean Prideaux used to declare that, “young men frequently came to
the university without any knowledge or tincture of religion at all; and
having little opportunity to improve themselves in it while
undergraduates, they are usually admitted to their first degree of B. A.,
with the same ignorance, as to all sacred learning, as when first admitted
into the university. And many of them, as soon as they have taken that
degree, offering themselves for orders, are too often admitted as teachers
in the church, when they are only fit to be Catechumens.” — (Life of
Prideaux, prefixed to his Connections, p. 37. edit. 1808.)
While quoting these testimonies respecting the low state of religion and
religious instruction in Oxford, justice requires that I should give the
evidence on the other side, known to me. I have an opposite testimony to
allege, and that is from no mean authority — BISHOP WARBURTON. Speaking
of the reception which the first part of the Divine Legation had
experienced, he thus eulogises the Universities —
“But the candid regard his book met with in the two universities, is his supreme honour. A
writer, neglected or condemned by them, struggles but vainly to save himself from oblivion;
while one they approve, is sure to rise superior above envy. Here science and true religion first
started from their long slumber of six barbarous ages, and in a Bacon and a Wickliffe, they gave
the earliest check to overbearing ignorance and superstition. What these two priests began, a
 second Bacon and a Newton, a Mede and a Chillingworth, all fostered in the bosoms of these two
universities, pursued and perfected. These are their ancient honours. And animated with their
former successes over ignorance and superstition, we now see them turn their arms with
unimpaired vigour against vice and profaneness. We see them oppose themselves to a torrent
of impiety: and we justly regard them as the last supports in a corrupt declining age.” — (Pref. to
vol. ii. Div. Leg. 1744.)
491
I will not pledge myself that Warburton does not write ironically in the
above passage. — All who know his spirit must be aware how he would
have written, had the universities opposed his book. Whether he thought
he had gone too far, or the universities changed their conduct, I cannot
tell. But he did not prefix the preface from which I have taken the excerpt,
to the following editions. I hope the religious state of Oxford is better
than it was. But still, no suitable or adequate provision is made by the
university for the religious or theological instruction of its clerical pupils.
And it is well understood that the community at large derives no benefit
from the universities, that is at all commensurate with the immense
funds of these establishments, and the dignified leisure afforded to their
numerous inhabitants. DRONE-HALL, which was once proposed to be
erected, I fear would still have more professors and fellows, and be more
674
numerously attended, than any other.
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD OPEN TO ALL
DURING THE COMMONWEALTH, p. 187.
The liberal principles on which the University of Oxford was conducted
during the Commonwealth, afford a contrast to the exclusive system
which has ever since been pursued. It was no less striking than that which
is furnished by the state of religion and learning. Then, men of all
professions occupied its chairs, and enjoyed the benefit of its funds and
instruction. Ever since, it has furnished places for the men of one party
alone, many of whom subscribe articles without believing them, and take
oaths which they never mean to regard. To say nothing of the iniquity
which such a system necessarily generates, there is gross injustice in thus
appropriating the public funds, and the benefit of education, which ought
to be common to all. Knowing that Dissenters are necessarily excluded
from the English universities, it is somewhat ludicrous to hear
Churchmen boasting, as they often do, of their superior learning and
capacity for defending religion.
“An extensive erudition in Pagan, as well as Christian antiquity,” says Bishop Horsley, “joined
with a critical understanding of the sacred text, is that which has so long enabled the clergy of
 the Church of England to take the lead among Protestants, as the apologists of the apostolic faith
and discipline; and to baffle the united strength of their adversaries of all denominations.” —
(Controversial Tracts, p. 78.)
To say nothing of the modesty of this declaration (modesty was not a
virtue for which Bishop Horsley was distinguished), nor of the truth of it
(which I by no means admit) — even if it were as the Bishop would have it
— no great thanks are due to the clergy, when it is considered how amply
they are remunerated for their defences of religion. These defences come
almost entirely from the dignified clergy, who may be said to do nothing
else, as they do not belong to what Horsley calls “the labouring class of
the priesthood.”
492
675
To afford the otium cum dignitate to the few of them who can write,
Paley admits that “leisure and opportunity must be afforded to great
numbers.” I believe I speak moderately in asserting, therefore, that every
defence of religion which comes from this quarter, costs the country some
hundred thousand pounds. Whether they are usually worth this, I do not
pronounce. It must be left to others than Bishops, to determine whether
defences of Christianity and of Christian doctrine, that have been just as
serviceable to the cause of truth and godliness, have not been produced
by those whose education costs the country nothing, and their leisure as
little. The man who could maintain and defend it after being contradicted
— “That a genuine Calvinist is hardly to be found among Dissenters at
present,” (Controversial Tracts, p. 448.) — is really not capable of
forming a judgment, or pronouncing an opinion, on anything not
belonging to his own party.
RACOVIAN CATECHISM, — p. 214.
The first edition of the Racovian Catechism was published in 1605 in the
Polish language. A Latin version of this, by Moscorovius, appeared at
Racow in 1609. This work was reprinted in London, in 18mo with the
imprint of Racovia in 1651, with the life of Socinus, by Przipcovius,
appended to it. In the following year, this book attracted the notice of
Parliament which, on the 2d of April, 1652, passed a resolution requiring
the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex to seize all the copies of the
Catechism, and cause them to be burnt at the London exchange, and the
palace-yard, Westminster, on the 6th and 8th of the same month — which
was accordingly executed. An English translation of this work lies before
me, which Dr. Toulmin, in his life of Socinus, p. 260, conjectures to have
been made by Biddle.
“The Racovian Catechism, in which you have the substance of the confession of those churches
which, in the kingdom of Poland, and the great dukedom of Lithuania, and other provinces
appertaining to that kingdom, affirm that no other, save the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is
that one God of Israel; and that the man Jesus of Nazareth, who was born of the Virgin, and no
other besides or before him, is the only begotten Son of God. Printed at Amsterdam for Brooer
Janzz. 1652.”
It is a small I8mo. of 176 pages. Prefixed to it is an anonymous address ‘to
the Christian reader.’ But a much better translation has recently been laid
before the public — “The Racovian Catechism, with notes and
illustrations, translated from the Latin: to which is prefixed, a Sketch of
the History of Unitarianism in Poland, and the adjacent countries. By
Thomas Rees, F. S A. Lond. 1818.” The historical introduction to this
work is valuable, and reveals much research into the ecclesiastical history
of Poland and Transylvania, and the early progress of Socinianism on the
Continent. The Catechism and notes afford important Evidence of the
gradually increasing deterioration of Unitarianism.
493
The first leaders of the party held many sentiments which the modern
Socinians universally discard — such as the existence of the Devil. “Most
modern Unitarians,” says Mr. Rees “have abandoned this belief, as a
vulgar error, involving the most palpable inconsistencies, and wholly
irreconcilable with the fundamental truths of natural and revealed
religion.” Note p. 7. — The pre-existence and superiority of Christ to
men. “This doctrine, however,” says Mr. Rees, “though formerly held by
Dr. Lardner and some other eminent Unitarians, seems now to be
rejected by all the public advocates of this system, as unsupported by
adequate Scriptural authority.” p. 54. — The worship of Christ was
strenuously contended for by Socinus himself, the Polish Socinians, and
the old English Socinians. “The Unitarians in the present day, in this
country,” Mr. Rees informs us, “universally concur in rejecting this
system of subordinate worship altogether.” p. 198. Other things might
also be noticed; but these may suffice to show the progressive march of
Socinianism to infidelity. Indeed, I am at a loss to discover what it is of
importance, that distinguishes them from a sect of moderate Deists; —
unless it is their inconsistency and dishonesty in professing to believe the
Bible to be a revelation from God, and rejecting its peculiar doctrines,
and mangling its contents. I have been indebted for the particulars at the
beginning of this note, to Mr. Rees’ introduction, along with Walchii Bib.
Theol. tom. i. pp. 535-545, where many more facts will be found if the
reader is inclined to follow out this subject. It is worthy of notice, that
none of the modem Socinians seem to know anything of Owen’s
Vindiciae. Toulmin, in his life of Biddle, pp. 111, 112, refers to it in such a
way as to imply that he had never seen it. He says, “Neal has called it a
learned and elaborate treatise.” Lindsay, in his “historical View of the
state of Unitarian doctrine, from the Reformation to our own time,”
though he eulogises Biddle, seems to be ignorant that he ever met with
any answer, except burning his books, and imprisoning their author. Do
these rational men read only on one side, or do they conceal what they
know has been written on the other? The account given by Dr. Stock of
his reading, while a Socinian, would incline us to think that the former is
the case, at least on the part of bred or educated Socinians — (See his
Letter to Mr. Rowe, New Evangelical Mag. 1817, p. 275.)
ON THE USE OF THE TERM INDEPENDENT, p. 229.
The unsuitableness, and indefinite nature of the designation
Independent, as well as the fact that it was given as a term of reproach,
are well stated in the following passages:
“Nor is Independency a fit name of the way of our churches. For in some respects, it is too strait,
and in others, too large. It is too strait in that it confines us within ourselves, and presents us as
independent from all others. Whereas, indeed, we profess dependence upon magistrates for civil
government and protection; dependence upon Christ and his Word for the sovereign
government and rule of our administrations;
494
dependence upon the counsel of other churches and synods, when our own variance or
ignorance may stand in need of such help from them. And therefore, this title of Independency
straitens us, and restrains us from our necessary duty and due liberty. Again, in other respects,
Independency stretches itself too largely and more generally, than it can single us out. For it is
compatible to a national church, as well as to a congregational. The national church of Scotland
is independent from the government of the national church of England, and so is England
independent fi-om Scotland. Nor is there any sect at this day extant, but shrouds itself under the
676
title of Independency. The Anti-pedobaptists, Antinomians, Familists, yes, and the Seekers,
too, all style themselves Independents. Indeed, even the Pope himself, who exalts himself above
all civil and church power, even he also arrogates the title of Independency: — “Prima sedes a
677
nemine judicature” — The see of Rome is independent. Why then should Independency be
appropriated to us, as a character of our way, which neither truly describes us, nor faithfully
distinguishes us from many others? Therefore, if there must be some note of difference to
decipher our state, and to distinguish our way from a national church way, I know none fitter
than to denominate theirs classical, and ours congregational.” — (Cotton’s Way of the
Congregational Churches clarified, p. 11.)
In reply to the abuse of William Prynne, Burton, his fellow-sufferer, says:
—
“First, you quarrel with the title of Independency. Truly, brother, none of all those whom you
thus entitle, at all glory in this name, so as to give you thanks for your so often styling them thus
in one poor sheet of paper: seeing they cannot imagine you do it honoris gratia, while
everywhere you set it as a brand. Notwithstanding, we are not so ashamed of it as utterly to
disclaim it; and that is for two reasons: first, for distinction’s sake between us, and that which
you call your presbyterial government. The second is, because this word Independent, is to
signify that we hold all particular churches of Christ to be of equal authority, and none to have or
exercise jurisdiction over another; but that each church is under Christ’s government, as the sole
Head, King, Lord, and Lawgiver of it. You mightily mistake the matter, when you interpret
Independency as not needing both the communion and assistance of other persons, nations, or
churches.” — (Burton’s Vindication of the Churches called Independent, p. 42.)
It is not worthwhile contending about a name; but it is necessary to
explain its only correct application, in order to point out the
misunderstanding which it has occasioned, and the misrepresentation
which has been founded on that misunderstanding. Those who wish to
ascertain the sentiments of the existing Independents on the subject of
the union of Churches, will find them admirably stated and defended, in
“The Scriptural Unity of the Churches of Christ illustrated and
recommended — A Sermon, preached on occasion of the Fifth Annual
Meeting of the Congregational Union for Scotland: By Ralph Wardlaw,
D.D.” I beg leave to recommend that Sermon, with its valuable notes, to
the candid perusal of both Presbyterians and Independents.
495
PRAYERS OF CROMWELL’S CHAPLAINS, — p. 250.
Those who make themselves merry with the prayers of Cromwell’s
ministers, and of other persons of that description during this period, are
perhaps not sufficiently aware that the use of an uncouth and unseemly
phraseology in addresses to God, was the vice of the period, not of the
men. It was common to others, as well as to those who are stigmatized as
the sectaries of the time. It is indeed impossible to produce the prayers of
Churchmen, as their book allow neither for improvement nor
deterioration from the changes of human society. But if we may judge
what would have been their prayers from their sermons, it is not difficult
to perceive that even the best of them did not rank high above the
preachers of the Commonwealth. I am far from thinking that their
prayers prove that their minds were as low and vulgar as the language
which they employed would seem to indicate. They were men accustomed
to pray much —in itself this gendered a kind of familiar habit. And as they
were not surrounded by sentimental religionists, or fashionable
clergymen, but by persons of their own spirit and sentiments, they
expressed themselves without reserve.
High devotional ardour cannot always be restrained to measured
phrases; but those who can make every allowance for poetic licence, and
scientific enthusiasm, have no charity for any excess of feeling in which
religion is concerned. The following expressions in Luther’s prayers for
Melanchthon, when he was thought dying, are similar to the confidence
and familiarity which were used respecting the dying Protector.
“‘We implore you, O Lord our God; we cast all our burden on you, and will cry till You hear us,
pleading all the promises which can be found in the Holy Scripture respecting your hearing
prayer, so that You must indeed hear us, to preserve at all future periods our entire confidence
in your own promises.’ After this, he seized hold of Melanchthon’s hand and, well knowing the
extreme anxiety of his mind, and the troubled state of his conscience, said ‘be of good courage,
Philip, you shall not die.’” (Cox’s Life of Melanchthon, p. 406.)
Those who wish to see the language which even dignitaries of the Church
used about the time of the Commonwealth, will find some specimens in
Robinson’s translation of Claude’s Essay; and if the prayers of a lay
fanatic may be referred to, the reader will find in Milton’s prose works
specimens of addresses to God, to which there is nothing superior — I
was about to say, nothing equal in the English Liturgy. In the following
passage of one of them, he seems to hint at the future production of his
immortal poem:
“And he that now for haste snatches up a plain ungarnished present, as a thank-offering to You,
which could not be deferred in regard of your so many recent deliverances, may then perhaps
take up a harp and sing You an elaborate song to generations.
496
In that day it shall no more be said, as in scorn, this or that was never held so till this present
age, when men have better learned that the times and seasons pass along under your feet, to go
and come at your bidding; and as You dignified our Fathers’ days with many revelations above
all the foregoing ages since You took the flesh; so You can grant to us, though unworthy, as large
a portion of your Spirit as You please: for who shall prejudice your all-governing will? seeing the
power of your grace has not passed away with the primitive times, as fond and faithless men
imagine; but your kingdom is now at hand, and You standing at the door. Come forth out of your
Royal Chambers, O Prince of all the kings of the earth, put on the visible robes of your imperial
majesty, take up that unlimited sceptre which your Almighty Father has bequeathed You; for
now the voice of your Bride calls you, and all creatures sigh to be renewed!” — Milton’s Prose
678
Works, Edit. 1697, pp. 312, 313.
THE ALLEGED SCHISMATIC NATURE OF INDEPENDENCY, p.
265.
On no one point have Independents been more furiously assailed than on
the schismatical, or separating nature of the constitution of their
churches. On this subject, the following passage deserves attention. It is
from a work of Lord Brooke, one of the early supporters of this body— a
great sufferer for his principles, and a member of the Westminster
Assembly. It shows, what has been glanced at on page 229, that the
dispute between Independents and others on this point, chiefly respects
the ultimate appeal. If that is not in each congregation, it is yet to be
explained why it should stop short of a general council.
“The other grand heresy, which men so much cry against in separation, is the Independency of
their congregations. But why should the Independence of one Assembly on a province or nation,
be more schismatic than that of a province or nation on the whole world? Why may Geneva not
be as independent on France, as France may be on the other parts of Europe? In Geneva, why
may one congregation not be as independent on all Geneva, as Geneva is on all France beside?
Does such a wall, or river, or sea, so limit and bound the church within it, that it may be
independent on any church without it; and may not the congregation within this river be as well
independent on all other Assemblies within the same river or sea? Once we give way to the
dependence of churches, must not the Church of England depend on the Dutch church; or the
Dutch on England — as much as one church depends on a provincial church of Canterbury, or
the national church of all England? And if the English Church must depend on the Dutch, or the
Dutch on the English, which will be inferior? This, or that? By this dispute of precedence, we
shall at length cast all churches into such a confusion, as some of our Bishops’ sees were up to
679
now. Pompeius non admittit superiorem, Caesar non parem. And if Geneva depends on
France, then why not France on Spain? Spain on Italy? Italy on Rome? Rome on the Pope? And
had I begun a great deal lower, I should have come up higher, to this Head.” A Discourse on the
nature of Episcopacy, by Robert, Lord Brooke, pp. 104, 108.
497
THE EARLY INDEPENDENTS OBSERVED THE LORD’S
SUPPER WEEKLY, p. 308.
Owen’s answer to the question, “How often is the Lord’s Supper to be
administered?” clearly ascertains his sentiments on this subject. What his
practice was, is not so easily determined. That the Lord’s Supper was
observed very frequently in his church (often within a fortnight), is
evident from the dates prefixed to his printed addresses on those
occasions, which are noted on page 502 of this volume. That the early
Independent Churches observed the Lord’s Supper every first day of the
week, seems to me undoubted. The following account is given of the
public worship of the church in Deadman’s Place, London. They were
visited on a Lord’s Day morning by several Peers for the purpose of
observing their practice.
“The people went on in their usual method, having two sermons; in both of which they treated
those principles for which they had been accused, grounding their discourses on the words of
our 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 Lords
contributed liberally with them; and at their departure, they signified their satisfaction in what
they had heard and seen, and their inclination to come again.” — (Crosby’s Hist, of the Baptists,
vol. i. p. 163.)
With this statement, the account which Messrs. Goodwin, Nye, Simpson,
Burroughes, and Bridge, give of their stated public practice, is in full
accordance.
“Now, for the way and practice of our churches, we give this brief and general account. Our
public worship was made up of no other parts than the worship of all other reformed churches
consists of: such as public and solemn prayer for kings, and all in authority, etc.; the reading the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testament; exposition of them, as there was occasion, and
constant preaching-of the word; the administration of the two sacraments, baptism to infants,
and the Lord’s Supper; singing of psalms; a collection for the poor, etc., every Lord’s day.” —
(Apologetical Narration, etc. p. 8.)
Baillie charges the Brownists with teaching, “that the Lord’s Supper
should be celebrated every Lord’s day;” and quotes Johnson’s plea as his
authority — (Dissuasive, pp. 29, 47.) Speaking of the Independents
afterwards, he says,
“For the manner of their celebration, those who have seen it profess it to be in a very dead and
comfortless way. It is not as in New England, once a month, but as at Amsterdam, once every
Lord’s day — which makes the action much less solemn than in any other of the reformed
churches; and in this, it is too much like the daily masses of the Church of Rome.” (Ibid. p. 121.)
In the replies made to Baillie, I have not observed that this statement is
ever contradicted. I therefore suppose that it was generally admitted. I
am unable to say when the practice of observing it monthly came to be
adopted — nor am I at present inquiring which is the scriptural practice.
My business is merely to ascertain a fact, which proves nothing on either
side.
498
PERSECUTIONS IN NEW ENGLAND, — p. 336.
“It was with the utmost complacence that men, passionately attached to their own notions, and
who had long been restrained from avowing them, employed themselves in framing the model of
a pure church. But in the first moment that they began to taste Christian liberty themselves, they
forgot that other men had an equal title to enjoy it. Some of their number, retaining a high
veneration for the ritual of the English Church, were so offended at the total abolition of it, that
they withdrew from communion with the newly instituted church, and assembled separately for
the public worship of God. With an inconsistency of which there are such flagrant instances
among Christians of every denomination, it cannot be imputed as a reproach to any particular
sect, that the very men who had fled from persecution, became persecutors. And in order to
enforce their own opinions, they made recourse to the same unhallowed weapons against the
680
employment of which they had recently remonstrated with such violence. Endicott
summoned the two chief malcontents before him; and though they were men of note, and
among the number of the original patentees, he expelled them from the society, and sent them
 home in the ships which were returning to England.” — (Robertson’s America, Book x.)
Such is the account which the learned historian of America gives of the
conduct of the New England Congregationalists. In several particulars, it
is far from correct and unsupported by the authorities to which he refers.
It was not “in the first moment” of their tasting Christian liberty that they
began to persecute others; but many years after the first settlement was
formed. The emigration of the Brownists was in 1620. The transaction
referred to by Dr. Robertson took place in 1630. It was not by the first
settlers that these things were done, but by those who followed, and who
were chiefly under the direction of Governor Endicott who, though a
worthy man, was “of a hot temper, and not possessed of the greatest
prudence.” — (Hutchinson’s Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 17; Gordon’s
America, vol. i. p. 26.) Robertson omits that the two Gentlemen had come
from England with the strongest prejudices against the New England
Separatists; that they not only set up a church of their own, but brought
“railing accusations against the ministers.” And for “endeavouring to
raise a mutiny among the people,” they were sent back to England by
Governor Endicott, to prevent the injury of the colony in its infant state
(Neal, vol. i. p. 129, 150) When it is further stated that Endicott himself,
when he left England, was inclined to Episcopacy, and approved of civil
establishments of Christianity; that it was only after he arrived in
America, that he professed to fall in with Independency; and that this
occurred the year after his arrival, it will not appear very fair to make
Independents accountable for all his conduct. — (Morton’s New
England’s Mem. p. 73, 77. — Gordon, vol. i. p. 25.)
499
We need not wonder at the colonists being afraid of the propagation of
High Church principles. They had suffered much from them at home.
And as they considered them part of a system of political as well as
ecclesiastical despotism, they were afraid lest the Court of England afford
its support to the efforts of such men, to crush the liberties for which they
had relinquished their native land. The subsequent religious oppressions
may all be traced to one law, which was passed the second General Court
after Endicott’s arrival: that, “for the time to come, no man shall be
admitted to the freedom of this body politic, except those who are
members of some of the churches within the limits of the same.” —
(Gordon vol. i. 30.) This law was quite inconsistent with the great
principles of the original Colonists, and it was calculated to involve them
in terrible evils. But as it does not belong to Dissenters, but to the system
from which they dissent, the evils resulting from it ought to be charged to
that system. Making some allowance on the score of ignorance and early
misconduct, it cannot be doubted that America owes everything she now
enjoys of civil and religious liberty, to the principles of the
Congregationalists. The strength and excellence of their grand principles
survived every danger, and surmounted every difficulty. They planted the
germ of freedom, which gradually arrived at maturity, and is now covered
with foliage and with fruit. Esto perpetua. [May it be eternal.]
OWEN’S SUCCESSORS IN BURY STREET, — p. 397.
The Doctor’s immediate successor was his colleague, Mr. Clarkson, who
died in 1687. Isaac Loeffs, who had been colleague for some time with Mr.
Clarkson, succeeded him as sole pastor, and died in 1689. We have
already given some account of both these excellent men. The next pastor
was Isaac Chauncey, eldest son of the venerable President of Harvard
College, in New England. In his time, the Church fell off exceedingly,
owing to his lack of popularity as a preacher, and his often preaching on
the subject of Church Order. He resigned his office in the Church in 1701,
and was soon after appointed Tutor of the Independent Academy. This
still exists at Homerton, and it has numbered among its Tutors and
Pupils, some of the most learned of the English Dissenters. Dr. Chauncey
remained in this situation till his death. He edited some of Owen’s
posthumous writings, and published several things of his own.
His successor was Dr. Isaac Watts, whose history requires no illustration,
and whose name needs no eulogy from me. Mr. Edward Terry had been
assistant for a time to Dr. Chauncey. Before Dr. Watts had been in the
ministry long, he was attacked by a painful and lingering illness, which
rendered assistance absolutely necessary. Mr. Samuel Price was therefore
chosen to this office; and acted as assistant and co-pastor for more than
forty years. Dr. Watts died in 1748, and Mr. Price in 1756. It is praise
enough to say that he was worthy of being united in office with Watts.
500
During the latter years of his life, Mr. Price was assisted by Meredith
Townshend; and he was succeeded by Samuel Morton Savage, D.D., a
man of learning and high respectability, but not very successful as a
preacher. For many years, he was Tutor of the Academy formerly at
Hoxton, and now removed to Wymondley. He preached only in the
mornings at Bury Street, and was assisted in the afternoons, first by Mr.
Thomas Porter, and afterwards by Mr. Josiah Thompson. The
Congregation in 1782 was reduced to a very low state, when it invited Mr.
Beck, the present Minister to succeed Dr. Savage. There is a good
endowment belonging to the Church; but it still continues low,
notwithstanding the attempts which have been made to revive it. —
(Wilson’s Hist, of the Diss. Churches, vol. i. pp. 251, 328.) In referring to
this work, I beg here to acknowledge my occasional obligations to it.
While I bear testimony to the intricate and interesting information which
it contains, I cannot help expressing my astonishment at the little support
it has received from the body on whose history it has bestowed so much
labour. And my hope that the respectable author will yet be encouraged
to lay the fifth volume before the public, which I understand has long
since been fully prepared.
POSTHUMOUS WRITINGS, — p. 443.
About the time of the Doctor’s death, a small manuscript was handed
around, containing twelve arguments against conformity to worship that
is not of Divine institution. The leading object of these arguments is to
point out the unlawfulness of those who had separated from the Church
of England, [subsequently] uniting in its public services — as those
services are of a very different nature from the worship which Christ has
appointed. This MS. occasioned a very violent discussion. It was sent to
Baxter as that which had satisfied many about the impropriety of joining
in the Liturgy. “I hastily answered them,” he says, “but found after, that it
would have been most prudent to have omitted his name; for on that
account, a swarm of revilers in the city, poured out their keenest
censures, and three or four wrote against me, whom I answered.” It is no
wonder that Owen’s friends were displeased, as he was scarcely in his
grave when this attempt was made by Baxter, to convict him of no less
than forty-two errors in the space of ten pages! It reminds us of the
controversy between Erasmus and Natalis Bedda. The latter extracted
from the writings of Erasmus, two hundred erroneous propositions.
Erasmus revenged himself in the same way, by calculating that Bedda
had been guilty of a hundred and eighty-one lies, three hundred and ten
calumnies, and forty-seven blasphemies! — (Jortin’s Erasmus, vol. ii.
245.) Owen’s Twelve Arguments are printed in the octavo edition of his
Sermons, published in 1720. Baxter’s Reply is in his “Defence of Catholic
Communion.” The occasional conformity controversy gave a great deal of
trouble to the Dissenters, both then and afterwards, to which Baxter’s
conduct and writings very largely contributed. Owen’s Tract is one of the
best things on the other side.
501
“A Treatise on the Dominion of Sin and Grace, 1688.” This small work
was published by the Doctor’s widow, and edited by Mr. Chauncey, who
assures us it was left by the author in a state of preparation for the press.
It is the substance of a few sermons from Rom. 6.14. He endeavours to
ascertain in whom the reign of sin exists, how the law supports it, and
how grace delivers from it, by setting up its dominion in the heart. It
reveals the same experiential acquaintance with the state of nature and of
grace, which appears in the other productions of the author, on similar
subjects. There is nothing of barren speculation in it; rather, the most
accurate knowledge of the theory of Christianity, combined with its
application to the heart and conduct. It is well-fitted to promote that
practical godliness which is the grand end of the dispensation of mercy.
In speaking of this work, I must take the opportunity to note another of a
similar nature, which (by an oversight) is not introduced in its proper
place. — “Of Temptation; the nature and power of it; the danger of
entering into it, and the means of preventing that danger,” etc. 12mo.
This work should have been introduced under the busy year 1658. It is so
remarkably similar to the works on Indwelling sin, and the Mortification
of sin, that the remarks made on them are equally applicable to this. It is
the substance of some sermons on Mat. 26.41. — “Watch and pray that
you do not enter into temptation.” Like all his experiential writings, it
seems to have been called forth by his observation of the state of the
times. He refers in his preface, to the awful providences of which the
country still continued to be the subject; the spirit of error which had
spread so widely; the divisions and contentions which so extensively
prevailed; the temptations which had overthrown the faith of many, and
the general backsliding from early zeal and holiness which had taken
place. The treatise, however, has nothing local or temporary in its
composition; but must continue to be suitable and useful so long as
temptations continue, and Christians are exposed to danger from them.
In 1693 appeared the last part of his work on the Spirit: “Two discourses
concerning the Holy Spirit, and his work. The one, of the Spirit as a
comforter; the other, as he is the author of spiritual gifts.” There is a
preface to it by Nathaniel Mather, the son of Richard Mather, President
of Harvard College, Pastor of the Independent Church in Lime Street.
“As God gave Dr. Owen transcendent abilities,” he says, “so he also gave him a boundless
enlargement of heart, and an insatiable desire to do service to Christ and his church, insomuch
as he was thereby carried on through great bodily weakness, languishing, and pains, besides
many other trials and discouragements, to bring out of his treasury, like a scribe well-instructed
in the kingdom of heaven, many useful and excellent fruits of his studies, much beyond the
expectation and hope of those who saw how often and how long he was near the grave.”
“The Gospel Grounds and Evidences of the Faith of God’s Elect,” was
published in 1695. The preface is written by Isaac Chauncey. The leading
object of the treatise is to inquire into the nature of saving faith; and into
the evidence which a Christian ought to have that his belief is genuine or
sincere.
502
Had the Tract been entitled “Evidences of genuine religion,” or something
similar, the subject of it would have been more accurately defined — for
what it contains is no more connected with faith, than with other
Christian principles. It furnishes some valuable illustration of that state
of mind and conduct which every Christian who desires to make his
calling and election sure, ought to cultivate.
In 1721, a folio volume appeared entitled, “A complete Collection of the
Sermons of the Rev. and Learned John Owen, D.D., formerly published:
with an addition of many others never before printed. Also, several
valuable Tracts, now first published from MS., and some others which
were very scarce.” There is prefixed to it, Memoirs of the Doctor, drawn
up by Mr. Asty, pastor of the Church in Rope-Maker’s Alley, assisted by
Sir John Hartopp, to whom the volume is dedicated. There is also a
preface written by John Nesbitt, Matthew Clarke, Thomas Ridgley, D.D.,
and Thomas Bradbury, Independent ministers in London, and all men of
note in their day. I have often referred to this volume, in the body of this
work. It is sometimes quoted under the title of fol. Works, and at other
times, Sermons and Tracts. Besides those things which we noted in the
order in which they appeared, it contains a Funeral Sermon for the
Doctor, by Mr. Clarkson, which is remarkably barren of information
about its object. There are twenty-nine Sermons never before published;
also fourteen short Discourses resolving various cases of conscience,
delivered at Church meetings between 1672 and 1680. A Tract about
Marrying after Divorce on account of Adultery, the lawfulness of which he
maintains. Another about Infant Baptism and Dipping, in which he
argues in support of the former, and in opposition to the latter. The rest
of the Tracts have been noted already.
In 1756, “Thirteen Sermons, preached on various occasions, by John
Owen, D.D.” were published by Mrs. Cooke, of Stoke-Newington, grand-
daughter to Sir John Hartopp. Several of them were preached at
ordinations, and a few of them at Stadham in Oxfordshire. They were all
preached between 1669 and 1682; and they appear to have been taken
down in short-hand, by Sir John Hartopp, from whose papers they were
selected.
In 1760, “Twenty-five Discourses, suitable to the Lord’s Supper, delivered
by Dr. Owen, just before the administration of that sacred ordinance,”
were published by Richard Winter, minister of the Church in New Court,
Carey Street. They were furnished from the same source with the former
volume, and are dedicated to Mrs. Cooke. They too were delivered
between 1669 and 1682. From the dates, which are regularly prefixed to
them, it appears that the Lord’s Supper was very frequently observed in
the Doctor’s Church, often at the interval of a fortnight. For instance.
Discourse iv. was delivered Dec. 24, 1669, — Discourse v. Jan. 7, 1670.
What the Doctor’s belief was respecting the frequency of observing the
Lord’s Supper, appears from his Catechism, as quoted, page 308. The
Independent Churches in England, at the beginning, observed the Lord’s
Supper every first day of the week. I am unable to say when their present
practice came to be generally adopted.
503
Anthony Wood ascribes some other works to Owen, which he
acknowledges he had not seen; and which I am satisfied were either not
his, or were other things of Owens whose titles were mistaken by Wood.
1. “A Thanksgiving Sermon, before Parliament the 25th of August, 1653.”
This was a day of thanksgiving for a victory over the Dutch. Whitelocke
mentions it, but takes no notice of the preachers. Owen might be one of
them, but I suspect the sermon as not published.
2. “A Sermon on 1John 1.3, 1658. This, I suppose, is the Doctors work on
Communion which was published about this time, and is founded on the
above passage.
3. “A pamphlet called Mene Tekel.” Wood refers to the Oxford Decree as
attributing this work to Owen. That Decree, indeed, refers to Mene Tekel;
but it does not speak of Owen as its author. The full title of the pamphlet,
which I have examined, is “Mene Tekel; or the Downfall of Tyranny. A
treatise in which liberty and equity are vindicated, and tyranny
condemned by the law of God and right reason: and the people’s power
and duty to execute justice, without, and upon wicked Governors,
asserted by Laophilus Mysotyrannus, 4to. 1663.” It is a very bold
republican Tract, but it is only necessary to look into it to be satisfied that
neither the style nor the sentiments are Owen’s.
“A Discourse concerning Liturgies, and their imposition, 4to. 1662,” is
also ascribed to Dr. Owen by Wood, and is inserted in the list of his
works, annexed to his memoirs, 1721. but in the second edition of the
Athen. Ox., Wood quotes an expression of Bishop Barlow’s intimating his
doubts about Owen being the author. I have not seen the work, but I
believe it is not Owen’s. As his colleague, Mr. Clarkson, published one
with this very title, it has thus perhaps been ascribed by mistake to Owen.
He is also represented as one of the continuators of Matthew Poole’s
English Annotations on the Bible; but he had no hand in that work. “The
Puritan turned Jesuit,” 4to. 1643, is sometimes stupidly inserted in the
list of his works — the very title of which is enough to show that Owen
could not have written it.
PREFACES TO THE WORKS OF OTHERS, — p. 443.
BESIDES his own numerous writings, Dr. Owen ushered into the world,
along with Prefaces, or recommendatory Epistles, a great number of
works by other authors. Of these, as far as they are known to me, I shall
now proceed to give some account in the order in which they appeared.
“A Collection of the works of Dr. Thomas Taylor,” one of the early
Puritans, was published in a folio volume in 1653 — to which was prefixed
his Life, by Joseph Caryl, and a Preface by Goodwin and Owen.
504
The volume contains Tracts and Discourses on a variety of subjects; some
of them with very quaint titles — Catechistical Exercises — The Jailor’s
Conversion — Famine of the Word — Peter’s Repentance —The Owle of
the Gospel — The Stranger at home, etc. etc. etc. The author, Dr. Taylor,
was a man of eminent piety, who suffered much for his principles and his
zeal. His works are now little known, but were formerly much esteemed.
He died in 1632.
“Justification without conditions, by W. Eyre, Minister of the Gospel, and
pastor of a church in the city of New Sarum, 8vo. 1653.” To this volume, a
Preface is prefixed by Dr. Owen, dated Westminster, November 7th, 1653.
It does not appear that he had previously read the work, as he speaks of
but ‘‘a minute of time given him,” to express his opinion. It therefore
refers entirely to the subject, and to the general opinion which he had
formed about the writer’s sentiments and character. How far he was
justified in sending into the world a production which he had not read, is
doubtful. I question whether he would have given it his sanction after he
perused it. The second edition, published in 1695, omits the Doctor’s
Preface. Many of the sentiments in the work, such as justification before
faith —the denial that faith is the means of justification — and his views
of election, and of some other subjects, are such that Owen could not
approve of. It is decidedly antinomian in its statements and tendency,
and it was designed for an answer to Messrs. Woodbridge, Cranford, and
Baxter. The last of whom replied to it the same year, in “An Admonition
to Mr. William Eyre.” The author was ejected from St. Edmund’s church
in Salisbury.
“The private Christian’s Non ultra, or a Plea for the Layman’s
interpreting the Scriptures, by Philolaoclerus, 1656.” In his Preface to this
pamphlet, the Doctor tells us, the author was unknown to him, and “he
does not build his theses on those principles which, in church affairs, he
owned as the mind of God; but he hoped that what he had brought
forward would be considered by some who were interested to own it,
before they gave in their account.” The object of it is much the same as
that of the Doctor’s work, on the duty of pastors and people. The author
endeavours to show that it is the duty and privilege of Christians to meet
together to instruct and exhort one another — a practice which has
generally characterised the best times of the church, and which, when
conducted with prudence and piety, is fitted to be of considerable service.
“A Defence of Mr. John Cotton, from the imputation of self-contradiction
charged on him by Mr. Dan. Cawdry. 12mo. 1658.” We have spoken
repeatedly of this little work in the text. Owen’s Preface is as large as the
book itself, and is a defence of his own work on Schism, against Cawdry’s
attack on it.
“The true idea of Jansenism, both historic and dogmatic, by Theophilus
Gale. 12mo. 1669.” The object of this small work is to explain the nature,
origin, and progress of those disputes between the Jansenists and Jesuits;
which had so long agitated France — disputes relating to the same points
— grace, predestination, and free will — which disturbed the Protestant
churches. Mr. Gale, during a residence on the continent, had enjoyed
unique opportunities to collect information on the subject, and this
volume affords a condensed and correct view of what had been going on.
505
The object of Dr. Owen’s preface, which is long, is to show from the
evidence of this work, that the boasted unity of the Church of Rome, is an
empty and false assumption; and that it would be easy to prove that there
is scarcely one point in which Papists differ from Protestants, on which
they are agreed among themselves. He exposes the iniquitous policy and
practice of the Romish Church in a very masterly manner, and points out
the insidious methods which it employed to crush the Jansenists. The
sentiments of that party were nearly allied, on doctrinal subjects, to those
of the Protestants — which no doubt was the chief reason for the ill
treatment they received from Rome. Everything from the pen of the
author of the Court of the Gentiles, is worth reading; but most of his
other pieces are now remarkably scarce. Among these are “Theophilie; or
the Saints’ amity with God, 1671.” “The Anatomy of Infidelity, 1672.” “A
Discourse of the coming of Christ, 1673.” “Idea Theologiae, tam
contemplativae quam activae, 1673.” “Philosophia Generalis, in duas
partes, etc. 1676.” “A summary of the two Covenants, 1678.”
“Clavis Cantici, or an Exposition of the Song of Solomon, by James
Durham, late minister at Glasgow,” 4to. 1669. Wood says Owen wrote the
preface to this work, which was printed after the death of the worthy
author. I am doubtful of this, HOWEVER, as the preface is anonymous, does
not appear to be Owen’s style, and as he wrote a preface to another work
by Durham, which will be noted immediately, it is probable that Wood
mistook the one for the other. The Clavis of Mr. Durham is still a popular
book among that class of persons who study the mystical design of the
Song, and who are fond of allegorical interpretation; but those who
adhere to the rigid principles of Biblical criticism, will not be satisfied
with many parts of this exposition.
“An introduction to the Holy Scriptures, etc. by Henry Lukin, 1669,
12mo.” The author of this small work was a minister in Essex, before the
Act of Uniformity, which threw him among the Dissenters. He was the
writer of several small practical works, which reveal an excellent spirit.
The “Introduction” contains many useful things for understanding the
Scriptures, but has long since been superseded. The substance of it,
indeed, is a translation and abridgment of part of the Philologia Sacra of
Glassius, to which Mr. Lukin acknowledges his obligations. I may take
this opportunity to recommend that valuable work to the theological
inquirer, as containing a treasure of Biblical criticism. The last edition
accommodated by Dathe to the present state of Hebrew literature, ought
to be possessed by every student of the word of God. Dr. Owen expresses
his high approval of Lukin’s Introduction, and the great satisfaction
which he derived from the perusal of it. “If other readers find the same
satisfaction as myself, as to the order, method, perspicuity, and sound
judgment in them all, that the author has employed and exercised in the
whole, they will conclude that he has acquitted himself as a workman that
need not be ashamed.” Mr. Lukin died in 1719, at the advanced age of 92.
506
In 1671, a preface signed J. O. appeared to, “The freeness of the grace and
love of God to believers by W. Bridge.” The treatise is the substance of
seven sermons, the sentiments of which are good, but the language is
quaint, and sometimes low. The preface glances at the attempt to make
the author ridiculous, by satirising his homely phraseology. This roused
the indignation of Dr. John Echard, who in a letter to Dr. Owen, treats
681
the Doctor with contempt, and Mr. Bridge with scurrility. “‘As I always
looked upon Mr. B., he says, to be very sickly and crazy, so I think you are
stark mad for being an occasion that any such sermons as these should be
sent into the world.’” It so happened, however, that Dr. Owen was not the
writer of this preface; for in his epistle to Caryl’s sermons, he declares
that he would have known nothing of the book if his accuser had not
pointed it out to him. In consequence, Dr Echard left out of the next
edition of his work, the letter to J. O. Mr. Bridge was one of the
Independent brethren of the assembly, and minister of a congregation at
Yarmouth, where he died in 1670. The other writings of the author show
that he was capable of producing something of more value, both in matter
and form, than those sermons.
“Sermons on the whole Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, by Mr. Daille,
translated into English by F. S. with Dr. Thomas Goodwin’s, and Dr. John
Owen’s Epistles recommendatory, 1672. fol.” The author of this work was
minister of the Reformed Church at Paris, and is now known chiefly as
the author of a work on the “Right use of the Fathers,” which is one of the
ablest treatises on the Popish controversy, and gave the church of Rome
more trouble than most books of the period. Bishop Warburton, who was
no mean judge on such a subject, affirms of this work, “It may truly be
said to be the storehouse from where all who have since written popularly
on the character of the Fathers, have derived their materials.” —
(Introduction to Julian. vii.). Daille wrote a series of discourses on the 3d
chapter of John, and on the 10th chapter of the first Epistle to the
Corinthians — besides this series on the Epistle to the Colossians, which
is the only portion of his sermons rendered into English. Both Goodwin
and Owen express their favourable opinion of the sentiments and useful
tendency of the work.
In 1673, Owen introduced, with a preface, an edition of Vavasor Powell’s
“New and useful Concordance to the Holy Bible.” This edition contained
about 9000 Scriptures omitted in the former editions. It is but a small
work, and furnishes only the principal word in the sentence. It is not
necessary to speak of the usefulness of such works. All former
concordances in English have been so long set aside by the invaluable
work of Cruden, that former labourers in this department of knowledge
are now almost forgotten. Powell was a laborious Baptist minister in
Wales, where he suffered much on account of his sentiments. He died in
1670, in the eleventh year of his imprisonment, and the fifty third of his
age — (Crosby, vol. i. p. 373.) Owen was very much offended to find that
no sooner had he produced the preface, than it was published that he had
completed the work, whereas he declares he neither added nor altered a
syllable of it. (Preface to Caryl’s Sermons.)
507
“The Divine Will, considered in its eternal decrees, and holy execution of
them, by Edward Polhill, 8vo. 1673.” I expected to have been able to
furnish some account of this excellent person, but all my inquiries
respecting him have failed.
“He was a very learned gentleman, and a justice of the peace, of very great esteem among all
men in his own county, where he lived in full and constant communion with the church of
England — He was zealously concerned for truth and serious religion, not for a party. On all
occasions he showed himself to be of a truly Christian, that is of a catholic temper, and was a
sincere lover of all good men.” — (Address to the reader prefixed to his posthumous discourse on
schism.)
This work was published in 1694; so that he must have died before that.
In a preface to the work on the Divine will, by Dr. Lazarus Seaman, Mr.
Polhill is represented as one of the sages of the law, and an oracle in the
country where he lives; as conformable himself, yet minding the power of
Godliness, more than the form of it; and as eminent for his domestic
piety, and exemplary conduct.
From Owen’s preface, it appears that he was unacquainted with Polhill
when he wrote it. He expresses his great respect for the author, though
“otherwise utterly unknown to him;” a respect which “was increased
when he found he was no minister or churchman; but a gentleman
actuated by a voluntary concern for truth and piety.” “‘The argumentative
part of the book, he says, “is generally suited to the genius of the past age,
in which accuracy and strictness of reason bore sway, and the language of
it to this [end].” Before his death, the author had lost his sight, as appears
from a very excellent letter dictated by him to a friend, inserted in the
Congregational Magazine, for 1819 — p. 693. The work to which Owen
writes a preface, seems to have been the first production of Mr. Polhill’s
pen. His next work was his “Answer to Sherlock,” on the Communion
controversy, and in defence of Owen, 1675. The same year he produced
“Precious faith considered in its nature, working and growth. 8vo.” In
1678, appeared “Speculum Theologiae in Christo: or a view of some
Divine truths, etc. 4to.” He published “Christus in Corde: or the mystical
union between Christ and Believers, 8vo. 1680.” In 1682, he produced
“Armatura Dei: or preparation for suffering, 8vo.” This is an excellent
and well written practical treatise, and the last which the author lived to
publish. The work on the Decrees, which Owen prefaced, shows how far
Polhill entered into the Calvinistic views of Christian doctrine; and
reveals more than ordinary ability in defending them. It was highly
esteemed by the late Dr. Williams of Rotherham, with whose sentiments
on various points, it nearly accords. All Polhill’s works are valuable, and
deserve a place in every theological library.
508
“The nature and principles of love as the end of the commandment;
declared in some of the last sermons of Mr. Joseph Caryl; with an epistle
prefixed by John Owen. D.D. 12mo. 1673.” These discourses were taken
down from the mouth of Mr. Caryl by a hearer, and therefore appear with
more than the ordinary disadvantages of posthumous writings. The
prefatory epistle of Dr. Owen is chiefly occupied in defending himself
against some of the many slanders which were then propagated against
him. Some notice has been taken of these, and of the Doctor’s answers to
them in other parts of this work.
In 1671, he wrote a preface to the eleventh edition of Scudder’s
“Christian’s Daily Walk.” The Author was sometime pastor of a Church in
Collingborn-ducis, in Wiltshire; and the work was one of the most
popular practical treatises among the Non-conformists of the seventeenth
century. Dr. Owen states that he had first read it over thirty years before,
and that the impressions made upon him in his youth continued in
grateful remembrance upon his mind. There is also a prefatory
recommendation by Baxter, who speaks of it in still stronger terms of
eulogy. The book is still known and esteemed by pious persons of the old
school. And if the sentiments and precepts with which it abounds were
more attended to, the interests of pure and undefiled religion would be
promoted. This work was translated into Dutch, by Theodore Haak.
“The difference between the Old and New Covenant, stated and
explained: by Samuel Petto, Minister of the Gospel, 12mo. 1674.” This is a
very excellent little work, which the Doctor, in a pretty long preface,
warmly recommends to the attentive perusal of the reader. Much
perplexing and meaningless language has been used about the Covenants
of God; and though Mr. Petto’s treatise is not altogether free from it, its
leading views are scriptural and consolatory. The author was ejected from
the living of Sandcroft, in Suffolk, and afterwards became pastor of a
Congregation at Sudbury. His grandson was minister of the Church in
Coggeshall, which Owen founded.
“The Surest and Safest way of Thriving, by Thos. Gouge, 1674.” This little
but valuable work, has no less than four prefaces, by Owen, Manton,
Baxter, and Bates. It contains many excellent things on the nature and
good effects of Christian liberality, with illustrations of its beneficial
results even in this world, to those who exercise it. The respectable
author, who was one of the ejected ministers, was an eminent example of
the virtue he recommended to others. He devoted his personal property,
which was originally considerable, almost entirely to works of
benevolence and mercy. Archbishop Tillotson preached his funeral
sermon, and gave him the highest commendation. The four prefacers all
speak of the author and the work in the strongest manner; and Dr. Watts
celebrated the memory of Mr. Gouge, after his death, in one of his most
beautiful lyrics.
No vulgar mortal died
 When he resigned his breath.
The muse that mourns a nation’s fall.
Should wait at Gouge’s funeral.
509
Should mingle majesty and groans,
Such as she sings to sinking thrones,
And in deep sounding numbers tell
How Sion trembl’d when this pillar fell.
“The Best Treasure, or the way to be made truly rich, by Bartholomew
Ashwood, 167_.” I do not know the year in which the first edition
appeared, with Owen’s Preface. It is a discourse on Ephesians 3.8, in
which the unsearchable riches of Christ are explained and recommended
to saints and sinners, as the best treasure to all who would be happy here
and hereafter. The Doctor says, “the most learned will find nothing in it
to be despised, and most believers will meet with that which will be to
their use and advantage.” Mr. Ashwood was ejected from Axminster, in
Devonshire; and is represented by Calamy as a judicious, godly, and
laborious Divine.
“The Law Unsealed, or a Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments.
By James Durham, late Minister 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 more
satisfactory book than the one on Solomon’s Song — as the ground on
which its author treads is more solid, and the practical tendency of the
exposition more evident. Owen praises the work for its plainness, for its
general adaptation to the circumstances of Christians, and for the
constant attention which the author pays to the inward principle as well
as to the outward conduct. It reveals much knowledge of the word of God,
and of the character and state of man. Mr. Durham was a useful and
highly respectable minister in his day.
“The Ark of the Covenant Opened; or a treatise of the Covenant of
Redemption, between God and Christ, as the foundation of the Covenant
of Grace, etc. By a Minister of the New Testament, 4to. 1677.” The author
of this work was Mr. Patrick Gillespie, one of the Ministers of Glasgow,
and Principal of the University during the Commonwealth. Wodrow says,
“he was blamed for his compliances with the Usurper, and there is no doubt he was the minister
in Scotland who had the greatest sway with the English when they ruled here, indeed, almost the
only Presbyterian minister who was in with them.” — (Hist. of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p.
76.)
It is probable that Owen and he had first become acquainted on this
account. In his preface, the Doctor speaks of “his long Christian
acquaintance and friendship with the author;” who was dead before this
work appeared. It is only a small part of the design which he had formed,
and indeed prepared, for the press. The work, though scarcely known,
contains a large portion of scriptural knowledge and good sense; it is fully
entitled to all the commendation which Owen bestows on it.
510
“A Practical Discourse of God’s Sovereignty, with other material points,”
etc. by Elisha Coles, 1678. This is the production of a person who never
enjoyed the benefit of a learned education, and who had no knowledge of
any language but English. He appears to have been the friend of Dr.
Goodwin who, in a preface, bears testimony to the character of the
author, founded on a knowledge of him for twenty-eight years. The other
preface is subscribed by Dr. Owen and Sam. Annesley. It must have
exceedingly galled John Wesley to perceive that his grandfather, for
whom he had a very high respect, was the patron of one of the most
682
Calvinistic books ever published. The reading of this work, Dr. Kippis
says, occasioned his first renunciation of Calvinism (Biog. Brit, vol. iv. p.
3.) I have no doubt the substance of the work is scriptural; but it is
neither an accurate nor a guarded book, and by no means is it fit to be put
into the hands of an inquirer. He does not sufficiently limit sovereignty to
the exercise of benevolence; and thus he leaves it exposed to very
formidable objections. An enlightened Christian, however, may derive
much comfort and instruction from it. Those who would wish to see the
subject stated in the best and most delightful manner will be amply
gratified by consulting a sermon, entitled “Spiritual Blessings,’’ etc. 1814,
by Mr. Fletcher, of Blackburn.
“The Glory of Free Grace Displayed,” by Stephen Lob, 12mo. 1 680. A
preface to this Treatise was written by Dr. Owen, at the request of Mr.
Lob, to vindicate the Independents from the charge of Antinomianism,
and from being supporters of Crisp’s errors, which about this time were
making sad havoc among the dissenters. The preface, however, says little
on the subject, further than expressing the Doctor’s opinion of the work,
and his approval of Mr. Lob’s character and ministry. The performance
itself is, on the whole, a judicious one, very far removed from
Antinomianism. And it points out very plainly some of Dr. Crisp’s most
pernicious mistakes respecting sin, grace, election, imputation, etc.; but
the modem Antinomians go on fearlessly to repeat it, with an equal
disregard of Scripture, common sense, and all that has been previously
written. The sentiments of Owen were certainly widely different from
Antinomianism; but I do regret that he should have lent his name to
certain productions, whose tendency that way is by no means obscure.
“The Holy Bible, with Annotations and Parallel Scriptures, etc. by Samuel
Clark, fol. 1690.” There is a preface by Dr. Owen, dated Feb. 14th, 1683.
Another by Baxter, and a joint preface by Bates and Howe. The author
was a man of learning, piety, and diligence; and all the prefacers speak
highly of the Annotations. They are exceedingly short, but for the most
part very judicious. The Parallel Scriptures are selected with much care;
and if it were not superseded by more extensive works, this Bible might
still be useful.
Besides these published prefaces, the Doctor wrote a commendatory
preface to Ness’s Antidote to Arminianism. The author speaks of it,
though he does not give it. Augustine Plumsted, an ejected minister, and
afterwards pastor of the Congregational Church at Wrentham, in Suffolk,
with great labour, compiled a double Concordance containing the English
and also the Hebrew and Greek words of the Bible.
511
A prospectus and specimen were published, and an attestation to the
merits of the work was annexed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and
other distinguished persons. Dr. Owen also wrote an epistle to be
prefixed to it; but the work never appeared, either from lack of patronage,
or from the death of the author. — (Calamy’s Cont. vol. ii pp. 806, 809.)
 LETTERS FROM DR. OWEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS.
Among the young men, who were placed under his eye while at the
university, was a son of Judge Puleston, whose lady was a relation of the
Doctor. Mr. Philip Henry lived with this family for some time as chaplain
and tutor. He speaks of Lady Puleston as the best friend he had on earth;
and as a woman in piety inferior to few, and in learning superior to most
of her sex. She appears to have been a very excellent Christian, and died
of a painful complaint, on the 29th Sept. 1658 (Memoirs of Philip Henry,
pp. 21—47.) The two following letters were kindly furnished to me by the
Rev. Thomas Stedman, Rector of St. Chad’s, Shrewsbury. And though
they contain nothing of importance, as they are originals and illustrate a
little the connexions of Owen, they are entitled to a place.
Madam,
While I was hoping to have waited upon you and your worthy husband, at your own house, I
reserved begging your pardon that I had not acknowledged your favour in owning and minding a
kindred relation, and sundry other respects, till that season. Being prevented by the providence
of God as to those resolutions, I am led to lay hold on this opportunity of returning my hearty
thanks for your kind remembrances of him who is in no way able to deserve your respects —
though he will at all times have as hearty and entire an honor and regard to your ladyship, and
your noble husband, as any person living. I hope you both are in health, along with my cousins,
your sons, and I am resolved (if the Lord pleases) to see you in the [beginning] of this spring. My
wife presents her faithful service and respects to your ladyship, and is glad to hear of your name.
For my part, it is some contentment to me, that while I am in this place, I have some little
opportunity to express a regard to that relation you are pleased to allow me the honor of, by
taking the best care I can of him who bears the name of your family, my young cousin Puleston
— I humbly beg your pardon for this trouble, and leave to subscribe myself,
MADAM ,
My most humble service of respects, Your most humble Servant,
with many thanks for his kind invitation, and affectionate kinsman,
to your worthy husband. JOHN OWEN.

Ox: Ch: Ch: Coll: For the truly noble and virtuous Lady
Jan. 26th, 1657 Puleston, his honoured friend and
kinswoman — THESE.

512.
From Lady Puleston to Dr. Owen, from a copy in the
hand-writing of Mr. Philip Henry. (No date.)
MY MUCH HONORED COUSIN,
I was in hopes that I should have seen you here, as you proposed, last spring, and am very sorry
it fell out otherwise. It has pleased the Lord to lay me low under his hand by much pain and
many months’ sickness from a cancer in my breast, and I am waiting every day till my change
comes; but if we meet no more on earth, I hope we shall in the arms of Jesus Christ. There is a
 friend of mine, whose name is Edward Thomas, of Wrexham, who brings his son to your college,
and I request you to countenance him with your favour. The youth is very hopeful, both in
learning and grace, and his father an ancient professor of Godliness in these parts, and one of
approved integrity; and I know Sir, that such and what concerns them lie near your heart upon
far greater and other interests than mine; and I persuade myself, what your opportunities will
permit you to do in his behalf, you will receive a full recompense of reward for, from him who
has promised to requite even a cup of cold water given to a disciple in the name of a disciple.
Mr. Henry is here with me, much my comfort in my present affliction; what my husband intends
concerning him is not yet settled, but I hope it will be shortly. In the meantime, I am loth he
should lose a certainty in the College, for an uncertainty here; and I do, therefore, desire you to
continue his place to him for a while longer, that seeing the Lord has made him willing to lay
himself out in the work of the gospel, so far remote from his friends in this poor lost corner of
the land, he may not in anything be prejudiced for our sakes, who esteem him highly in love, and
desire to do it yet more and more. My husband is at London, or on his way home. We and ours
are much indebted to you for your love, and I should have been very glad, if it might have fallen
within the compass of my abilities, to make known other than by words, my sense of your many
kindnesses. But it is the Lord’s will that I should be your debtor. With my unfeigned respects
and service to your Lady and self,
I rest, your affectionate Cousin and Friend,
E. P.
Mr. Henry was presented to the parish of Worthenbury, where they
resided, by the Puleston family, and remained in it till he was ejected in
1662. Another very excellent letter, from Lady Puleston to Mr. Henry, is
inserted in his Memoirs, pp. 24, 25.
To Lady Hartopp.
DEAR MADAM ,
Every work of God is good; the Holy One in the midst of us, will do no iniquity; and all things
shall work together for good to those who love him; even those things which at present are not
joyous, but grievous; only his time is to be waited for, and his way submitted to, that we not
seem to be displeased in our hearts, that he is Lord over us.
513
Your dear infant is in the eternal enjoyment of the fruits of all our prayers; for the covenant of
God is ordered in all things, and sure: we shall go to her, she shall not return to us. Happy she
was in this, above us, that she had so speedy an issue of sin and misery, being born only to
exercise your faith and patience, and to glorify God’s grace in her eternal blessedness. My
trouble would be great on account of my absence at this time from you both; except that this also
is the Lord’s doing; and I know my own uselessness, wherever I am. But this I will beg of God for
you both: that you may not faint in this day of trial; that you may have a clear view of those
spiritual and temporal mercies with which you are yet entrusted, all undeserved; that the sorrow
of the world may not so overtake your hearts as to disenable you to any duties, so as to grieve the
Spirit, or to prejudice your lives; for it tends to death. God in Christ will be better to you than ten
children, and will so preserve your remnant, and so add to them, as shall be for His glory and
your comfort. Only consider that sorrow, in this case, is no duty; it is an effect of sin, whose cure
by grace we should endeavor. Shall I say, be cheerful? I know I may. God help you to honour
grace and mercy, in compliance with that. My heart is with you, my prayers shall be for you, and
I am, etc.
 To Mrs. Polhill.
DEAR MADAM ,
The trouble expressed in yours, is a great addition to mine: the sovereignty of divine grace and
wisdom is all that I have at this day to retreat to. God direct you there also, and you will find rest
and peace. It adds to my trouble that I cannot possibly come down to you this week; nothing but
engaged duty could keep me from you one hour; yet I am conscious how little I can contribute to
your guidance in this storm, or your satisfaction. Christ is your Pilot, and however the vessel is
tossed while he seems to sleep, he will arise and rebuke these winds and waves in his own time. I
have done it, and yet I will further wrestle with God concerning you, according to the strength he
is pleased to communicate. Little it is which at this distance I can mind you of; yet some few
things are necessary. — Sorrow not too much for the dead; she has entered into rest, and is taken
away from the evil to come. — Take heed, lest, by too much grief, you too much grieve that Holy
Spirit, who is infinitely more to us than all natural relations. I do not blame you that you so far
attend to the call of God in this dispensation, as to search yourself, to judge and condemn
yourself. Grace can make it an evidence to you, that you shall not be judged or condemned by
the Lord. I dare not say that this chastisement was not needful. We are not in heaviness, unless
need be; but if God is pleased to give you a discovery of the wisdom and care that is in it, and
how needful it was, to awaken and restore your soul in anything — perhaps in many things — in
due time you will see grace and love in it also.
514
I truly believe God in this dealing with you, would have you judge yourself, your sins, and your
decays — but He would not have you misjudge your condition. But we are like froward children:
when they are rebuked and corrected, they neglect other things, and only cry that their parents
hate and reject them. — You are apt to fear, to think, and to say that you are one whom God does
not regard, who are none of his; and that is for various reasons which you suppose you can
plead. But, says God, this is not the business; this is a part of your forwardness. I call you to
quicken your grace, to amend your own ways — and you think you have nothing to do, but to
question my love. Pray, Madam, my dear sister, child and care, beware that you not lose the
advantage of this dispensation. You will do so, if you use it only for afflictive sorrows, or
questioning the love of God, or of your interest in Christ. — The time will be spent in these
things, which should be taken up in earnest endeavours to comply with God’s will, quickenings
of grace, returns after backsliding — mortification of sin, and of the love of the world, until the
sense of it passes away. Labour vigorously to bring your soul to this two-fold resolution. (1.) That
the will of God is the best rule for all things, and their circumstances. (2.) That you will bring
yourself into a fresh engagement to live more to Him; and then you will find the remainder of
your work easy, for it is part of the yoke of Christ. I will trouble you no further, except to give you
the assurance that you are in my heart continually, which is nothing; but it helps to persuade me
that you are in the heart of Christ, which is all. I am, etc.
To his Church, when he was sick, at Lord Wharton’s.
Beloved in the Lord,
Mercy, grace, and peace, be multiplied to you from God our Father, and from our Lord Jesus
Christ, by the communication of the Holy Ghost. I thought and hoped that by this time I might
have been present with you, according to my desire and resolution; but it has pleased our holy
and gracious Father to dispose of me otherwise, at least for a season. The continuance of my
painful infirmities, and the increase of my weaknesses, will not allow me at present to hope that
I should be able to bear the journey. How great an exercise this is to me, considering the season,
He knows — to whose will I would cheerfully submit myself in all things. But although I am
absent from you in body, I am in mind, affection and spirit present with you, and in your
 assemblies; for I hope you will be found my crown and rejoicing in the day of the Lord. And my
prayer for you night and day is that you may stand fast in the whole will of God, and maintain
the beginning of your confidence without wavering, firm to the end. I know it is needless for me
at this distance to write to you about what concerns you in point of duty at this season — that
work being well supplied by my brother in the ministry. You will give me leave out of my
abundant affections towards you, to bring a few things to your remembrance as my weakness
will permit.
515
In the first place, I pray God that it may be rooted and fixed in our minds, that the shame and
loss we may undergo for the sake of Christ and the profession of the gospel, is the greatest
honour which we can be made partakers of in this life. So it was esteemed by the apostles; they
rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name’s sake. It is a privilege
superadded to the grace of faith, which all are not made partakers of. Hence it is reckoned to the
Philippians in a special manner, that it was given to them not only to believe in Christ but also to
suffer for him: that it is far more honourable to suffer with Christ, than to reign with the greatest
of his enemies. If this is fixed by faith in our minds, it will tend greatly to our encouragement. I
only mention these things, knowing that they are more at large pressed on you.
The next thing I would recommend to you at this season is the increase of mutual love among
yourselves. For every trial of our faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is also a trial of our love
towards the brethren. This is what the Lord Christ expects from us: namely, that when the
hatred of the world openly manifests and acts against us all, we should evidence an active love
among ourselves. If there have been any decays, any coldness in it, if they are not recovered and
healed in such a season, then it can never be expected. I pray God, therefore, that your mutual
love may abound more and more in all the effects and fruits of it towards the whole society, and
every member of it. You may justly measure the fruit of your present trial by the increase of this
grace among you. In particular, have a due regard toward the weak and the tempted, that what is
lame may not be turned away, but rather let it be healed.
Furthermore, brethren, I beseech you, hear a word of advice in case the persecution increases,
which it is likely to do for a season. I could wish that because you have no ruling elders, and your
teachers cannot walk about publicly with safety, that you would appoint some among yourselves
who may continually, as occasions allow, go up and down, from house to house, and apply
themselves especially to the weak, the tempted, the fearful, those who are ready to despond, or
to halt — and to encourage them in the Lord. Choose those to this end who are endued with a
spirit of courage and fortitude; and let them know that they are happy whom Christ will honour
with this blessed work. And I desire that the persons who may be of this number, are faithful
men, and know the state of the Church. By this you will know the frame of the members of the
Church, which will be a great direction to you, even in your prayers. Watch now, brethren, that if
it is the will of God, not one soul may be lost from under your care; let no one be overlooked or
neglected; consider all their conditions, and apply yourselves to all their circumstances.
516
Finally, brethren, so that I will not at present be further troublesome to you, examine yourselves
as to your spiritual benefit which you have received or do receive — by your present fears and
dangers, which alone will give you the true measure of your condition. For if this tends to the
exercise of your faith, and of love, and holiness, if this increases your valuation of the privileges
of the Gospel, then it will be an undoubted token of the blessed result which the Lord Christ will
give for your troubles. Pray for me as you do, that if it is the will of God, I may be restored to
you; and if not, then rather a blessed entrance may be given to me into the kingdom of God and
glory. Salute all the Church in my name. I take the boldness in the Lord to subscribe myself,
 Your unworthy Pastor, etc.
J. OWEN,
To Charles Fleetwood, Esq,
DEAR SIR,
I received yours, and am glad to hear of your welfare; there is more than ordinary mercy in every
day’s preservation. My wife, I bless God, is much revived, so that I do not despair of her
recovery: but for myself. I have been under the power of various distempers for fourteen days
past, and yet continue so. God is fastening his instruction concerning the approach of that
season, in which I must lay down this tabernacle. I think my mind has been too intent on some
things which I looked on as services for the Church; but God would have us know that He has no
need of me or them, and is therefore calling me off from them. Help me with your prayers, that I
may through the riches of his grace in Christ, be in some measure ready for my account. The
truth is, we cannot see the latter rain in its season, as we have seen the former, and a latter
spring thereon: death, that will turn in the streams of glory upon our poor withering souls, is the
best relief. I begin to fear that we shall die in this wilderness; yet we should labour and pray
continually, that the heavens would drop down from above, and the skies pour down
righteousness, that the earth may open and bring forth salvation, and that righteousness may
spring up together. If ever I return to you in this world, I beseech you to contend yet more
earnestly than I have ever done — with God, with my own heart, with the Church — to labour
after spiritual revivals. Our affectionate service to your Lady, and to all your family that are of
the household of God. I am, etc.
517
To the same.
Dear Sir,
The bearer has stayed long enough with us to save you the trouble of reading an account of me
in my own scribbling; a longer stay I could not prevail with him for, tho’ his company was a
great refreshment to me. Both you and your whole family, in all their occasions and
circumstances, are daily in my thoughts; and when I am able to pray, I mention you all without
ceasing. I find you and I are much in complaining. For my part I must say, and is there not a
cause? So much deadness; so much unspirituality; so much weakness in faith, coldness in love,
instability in holy meditations — as I find in myself — is sufficient cause for complaints. But is
there not also cause for thanksgiving and joy in the Lord? Are there not reasons for them?
When I begin to think of them, I am overwhelmed — they are great, they are glorious, they are
inexpressible. Shall I now invite you to this great duty of rejoicing more in the Lord? Pray for
me that I may do so — for the near approach of my dissolution calls for it earnestly. My heart is
done with this world, even in the best and most desirable of its refreshments. If the joy of the
Lord is not now strength for it, it will fail. But I must be done. Unless God is pleased to affect
some person, or persons, with a deep sense of our declining condition, of the temptations and
dangers of the day, filling them with compassion for the souls of men, making them fervent in
spirit in their work, it will go but ill with us. It may be that these thoughts spring from
causeless fears; it may be that none among us has an evil, barren heart but myself. But bear
with me in this, my folly; I cannot lay down these thoughts until I die; nor do I mention them
at present, as tho’ I should not esteem it a great mercy to have so able a supply as Mr. C. but I
am groaning after deliverance. And being near the centre, I hope I feel the drawing of the love
of Christ with more earnestness than formerly. But my naughty heart is backward in these
compliances. My affectionate service to Sir John Hartopp and his Lady, and to the rest of your
family when God returns them to you. I am, etc.
The five preceding Letters are from the Appendix to Asty’s Memoirs of
Dr. Owen. 1721.
To Sir John Hartopp.
— My duty, my obligations, and my inclinations, all concur in the esteem I have for you both;
and I mention you daily in my poor supplications — and that is with particular respect to the
present condition of your Lady: That God, who has revealed himself to us, as the God who hears
prayer, will yet glorify His name, and be a present help to her in the time of trouble. In the
meantime, let her, and you, and me, strive to love Christ more, to abide with him more, and to
be less in ourselves. He is our best friend. I pray God with all my heart that I may be weary of
everything else, but converse and communion with Him. Indeed, weary of the best of my
mercies, so far as they may at any time be hindrances of it. My wife presents her humble service
to your Lady and yourself, as does also, Sir, etc.
518
Dr. Owen to a Friend.
SIR,
I am very sorry to find that a difference has arisen between Mr. C and yourself. Since the receipt
of yours, I received one from him, with an account of the difference, and his thoughts upon it at
large. I do not therefore judge it fitting to write anything at present about it, until I am ready to
give to you both an account of my thoughts, which — because of many avocations — I cannot do
now. Therefore, all I will say at present, is that without mutual love, and condescension, no
interposition of advice will issue the business to the glory of Christ and the Gospel. I pray God to
guide you both by that Spirit which is promised to lead us into all truth. Upon the first
opportunity, you will have a further account of his sense, who is, etc.
January 2d, 1679.
The last two Letters are given from Dr. Williams’ account of Dr. Owen,
prefixed to his Abridgement of the Exposition of the Hebrews, by whom
they were first published.


CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF THE WORKS OF
OWEN,
WITH REFERENCES TO THE PAGES OF THIS VOLUME IN WHICH AN ACCOUNT IS GIVEN
OF THEM.
PAGES.
1642 Display of Arminianism, 4to. 29-35
1643 The Duty of Pastors and People distinguished, 4to. 47-50
1645 The principles of the Doctrine of Christ, in two 12mo. 52-54
Catechisms,
1646 A Vision of Unchangeable Mercy, a Sermon, 4to. 54-56
1647 Eshcol: or Rules for Church fellowship, 12mo 78-79
1648 Salus Electorum, a Treatise on Redemption, 4to. 79-84
1648 Memorial of the deliverance of Essex: two 4to. 85-87
Sermons
1649 Righteous Zeal: a Sermon, and Essay on 4to. 89-97
Toleration,
1649 The Shaking and Translating of Heaven and 4to. 111-112
Earth: a Sermon,
1649 Human Power Defeated: a Sermon, 4to. 115.
1650 Of the Death of Christ, in answer to Baxter, 4to. 119-121
1650 The Steadfastness of Promises: a Sermon, 4to. 122
1650 The Branch of the Lord; two Sermons, 4to. 125-126
1651 The Advantage of the Kingdom of Christ: a 4to. 137-139
Sermon,
1652 The Labouring Saint’s Dismission: a Sermon, 4to. 139-140
1652 Christ’s Kingdom and the Magistrate’s Power: 4to. 141
a Sermon
1653 De Divina Justitia: Translated 1794, 12mo. 201-
204
1654 The Doctrine of the Saints’ Perseverance, Fol. 205-
 210
1655 Vindiciae Evangelicae: Reply to Biddle, 4to. 213-218
1656 On the Mortification of Sin, 8vo. 219-
220
1656 Review of the Annotations of Grotius, 4to. 222-
223
1656 Gods Work in Founding Zion; a Sermon, 4to. 160-161
1656 God’s Presence with his People; a Sermon, 4to. 162-163
1657 On Communion with God, 4to. 252-
256
1657 A Discovery of the true nature of Schism, 12mo. 257-
259
1657 A Review of the True Nature of Schism, 12mo. 262-
263
1658 Answer to Cawdry about Schism, 12mo. 264
1658 Of the Nature and power of Temptation, 12mo. 501
1659 The Divine Original of the Scriptures, 12mo. 265-
267
1659 Vindication of the Hebrew and Greek Texts, 12mo. 267-
272
1659 Exercitationes ad versus Fanaticos, 12mo. 273-275
1659 The glory of Nations professing the Gospel: a 4to. 276
Sermon,
1659 On the Power of the Magistrate about Religion, 4to. 293
1660 A Primer for Children, 12mo, 293
1661 Theologoumena, 4to. 293-
296
1662 Criticisms on Fiat Lux, 12mo. 297
1664; Vindication of the Criticisms, 8vo. 297-
299
1667 Indulgence and Toleration considered 4to. 305
1667 A Peace Offering, or Plea for Indulgence, 4to. 305
1667 Brief Instruction in the Worship of God: a 12mo. 306-
Catechism, 309
1668 On Indwelling Sin, 8vo. 315-316
1668 Exposition of the 130th Psalm, 4to. 316-321
1668 Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, void. Fol. 321-334
1639 Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity, 12mo. 338
1669 Truth and Innocence Vindicated, 8vo. 339-
342
1671 On the Divine Institution of the Lord’s Day, 8vo. 349-
355
1672 On Evangelical Love, 8vo. 360-
361
1674 Vindication of the Work on Communion, 12mo. 379-381
1674 Discourse on the Holy Spirit, Fol. 381-
390
1674 Exposition of the Hebrews, vol. ii. Fol. 321-334
1674 How we may bring our hearts to bear reproof, 4to. 359
1676 On the Nature of Apostasy, 8vo. 390-
391
1677 The Reason of Faith, 8vo. 382-
390
1678 On the Doctrine of Justification, 4to. 401-
408
1678 The Ways and Means of Understanding the 8vo. 382-
Mind of God, 390
1679 Christologia, or the Person Christ, 4to. 409-
412
1679 The Church of Rome no Safe Guide, 4to. 412-413
1680 On Union among Protestants, 4to. 414-415
1680 Vindication of the Non-conformists 4to. 415-417
1680 Exposition of the Hebrews, vol. iii. Fol. 321-334
1681 Defence of the Vindication, 4to. 419
1681 Inquiry into Evangelical Churches, 4to. 422-
438
1681 Humble Testimony, 8vo. 438-
439
1681 On Spiritual Mindedness, 4to. 439-
441
1682 The Work of the Holy Spirit in Prayer, 4to. 382-
390
1682 The Chambers of Imagery 4to. 359
1683 An Account of the Protestant Religion, 4to. 441
1684 Meditations on the Glory of Christ, Part I. 8vo. 442-
443
1684 Exposition of the Hebrews, vol. iv. Fol. 321-334
1688 Of the Dominion of Sin and Grace, 8vo. 500-
501
1689 True Nature of a Gospel Church, 4to. 422-
438
1691 Meditations on the Glory of Christ, Part II 8vo. 442-
443
1693 Two Discourses on the Work of the Spirit, 8vo. 382-
390
1695 Evidences of the Faith of God’s Elect, 8vo. 501-
502
1720 Seventeen Sermons, with the original 8vo. 500
Dedications,” etc. to which are added “Manuscripts
of the Doctor’s, never before printed.” The amount
of these MSS. is “An Answer to two Questions, with
twelve Arguments against any Conformity to
Worship not of Divine Institution,” 2 vols.
 1721 Sermons and Tracts, Fol. 502
1756 Thirteen Sermons, 8vo. 502
1760 Twenty-five Discourses at the Lord’s Supper, 12mo. 502




INDEX.
A
Abney, Sir Thomas and Lady, 363
Alleine, Joseph, 186
Alsop, Vincent, 347, 417
Ames, Dr William, 69
Anglesea, Earl of, 373
Angier, Samuel, 395
Andrews, Mordecai, 489
Arminianism, progress of, 30-34
Army, Parliamentary, 116, 117
Arnold, Nicholas, 213
Assembly, Westminster, 71-75, 478
Ashwood’s best Treasure, 509
Asty’s Memoirs of Owen, 3
B
Bagshaw, Edward, 184
Baillie’s account of Independency, 74
Barlow, Bishop, 12, 179, 397, 400
Baron, James, 176
Barret, Mr., 417
Baxter, Richard, his character, 119
His Controversies with Owen, 119-122
His attempts at union with Independents, 309
His character of Owen, 471
Bendish, Mrs., 371
Berkely, Earl of, 376
Berry, Maj. Gen 365
Biddle, John, 210
Binning, Hugh, 127
Blackburn, Archdeacon, 490
Boyle, Hon. Robert, 179
Bridge’s Sermons, 506
Brooke, Lord, 496
Brown, Robert, 65, 486
Browning, Thomas, 489
Brownists, 66, 67
Bunyan, John, 398
Burton, Henry, 100, 494
Burnet, Bishop, quoted, 130, 182
Busby, Dr., 490
Busher, Leonard, 99
Button, Ralph, 176
C
Calamy, Edmund, 27
Cane, J. V., 296
Carstairs, William, 445
Caryl on Job, 333
His Sermons, 507
His death and character, 362
Casaubon. Meric, 193
Cawdry, Daniel, 146, 189
His Controversy with Owen, 260-265
Cawton, Thomas, 184
Charles I. his death unjustly ascribed to the Independents 89-93
Charles II. his character, 287
Converses with Owen, 377
Charnock, Stephen, 175, 484
Chauncey, Charles, 347
Isaac, 499
Cheynel, Francis, 212
Christ Church, account of, 134
Owen appointed Dean of, 132-135
Christian’s, the, Non Ultra, 504
Clagett, William, attacks Owen’s work on the Spirit, 387
Clarendon, Lord, intercourse between him and Owen, 290, 299
Clarke, Samuel, 179
Clark’s, Samuel, Annotations, 510
Clarkson, David,395-397
Claude, Monsieur, 420
Cole, Thomas, 176
Coles, Elisha, on Sovereignty, 509
Commonwealth, state of Religion during the, 242
Compton, Bishop, 182
Conventicle Act, 344
Cook, Dr., quoted, 107
Cotton, John, 264
Defence of, against Cawdry, 504
Crew, Bishop, 182
Cromwell, Oliver,
Owen’s first interview with, 112
His Character, 114
Ambition, 163-165
Owen’s Eulogy on, 198
His Death and Character, 241
Cromwell, Richard, 198
Succeeds his Father, 275
His Fall, 276-280
Crooke, Unton, 158-159
Cumberland, Bishop, 183
D
Daille, John, on the Colossians, 506
Degrees, Theological, disapproved of by many of the Reformers, and by Owen, 144-146
Desborough, Col. 368
Dickson, David, 323
Dissenters, sufferings of, 303
Downhame, Bishop, 323
Dort, synod of, 31, 477
Dublin, Owen’s labours in, 118
University of, revived, 123
Dunstar, Henry, 348
Duppa, Bishop, 11
Durham, on Solomon’s Song, 505
 on the Commandments, 509
E
Eaton, Nathaniel, 348
Edward’s John, against Toleration, 43
Jonathan, quoted, 244
Elliot, John, 352
Endicott, Governor, 302
Estwick, Nicholas, 212
Evelyne, quoted, 196
Eyre, Joseph, 486
William, 504
F
Fairfax, Lord, 85
Farmer, John, 489
Ferguson, Robert, 393-394
Fielding, John, 489
Fifth Monarchy People, 288
Firmin, Giles, 260
Fisher, Samuel, 274
Fleetwood, Charles, 363-365
G
Gale, Theophilus, 176,504-505
Gataker, William, 224
Gibbon’s account of Oxford, 180
Gilbert, Claudius, 486
Thomas, 204
Gillespie, Patrick, 488, 509
Goddard, Dr., 176
Goodwin, John, 206
Thomas, D.D., 144, 175, 413
Gouge, Robert, 489
Thomas, 508
William, 323
Government, Cromwell’s Instrument of, debate respecting, 148-152
Greenwood, Dr. Daniel, 177
Grey, Dr. quoted, 95
Grotius, 220-222
H
Hammond, Dr., 220-225, 259
Harris, Dr, 178
Harrison, Dr., 484
Harmar, Dr., 178
Hartcliffe, John, 8
Hartopp, Sir John and Lady, 366, 512
Harvard, John, 348
Harvard College, 348, 349
Haversham, Lord and Lady, 370-371
Henry, Philip, 185
Hervey’s classification of the Puritan writers, 475
Hoar, Dr., 349
Hood, Dr., 179
Hooke, Robert, 179
Hopkins, Bishop, 182
Horne, John, 84
Horsley, Bishop, 491
Hotchkis, Thomas, 381, 408
Howe, John, 177, 417
Howel, Francis, 176
Hoyle, Dr., 179
Hume, David, quoted, 106
Humfrey, John, 388, 408, 420, 470
Hyde, Dr., 179
I
Independency, the principles of, 63, 64
Rise and progress of, 65-75
Cromwell’s influence on, 246-249
Early state of in Ireland, 484-486
Early state of in Scotknd,486-488
Alleged schismatical nature of, 496
Independents, account of their dress, 197
Their Confession of Faith, 229-230
Meet at the Savoy for this purpose, 231-232
View of the declaration of Faith there agreed to, 232-238
Baxter’s hostility to it, 238
Forbes’s testimony in its favour, 238-239
Not much known, 240—241
Their anxiety to secure their liberty, 282-284
Independent, on the use of the term, 493
Indulgence, declaration of, 355
Dissenters address the King on the subject of, 357
Ireton, Henry, 139, 140
Ireland, state of religion in, 122, 124, 484
J
Jackson, Mr., 27
Jacob, Henry, 68
James I. his character and conduct toward the Puritans, 7-8
Jenner, Mr., 486
Jessop, Constantine, 480
Jews, conference respecting, 159
Jones, William, 323
Johnson, Francis, 177
Jortin, Dr., quoted, 243
K
Kendall, Dr 210
Kinaston, Roger, an impostor, 191
Kirkton, James, quoted, 131, 132
L
Laing’s account of Independent8, 74, 481
Lamb, Thomas, 210
Lampe on John, 334
Langbain, Dr. 179
Langley, Dr. Henry, 178
Laud, Archbishop, 16, 17
Lawson, George, 324
Lee, Samuel, 175
Levellers, the, 115, 116
Lichfield, Leonard, 191
Lloyd, Bishop, 183, 191
Lob, Stephen, 420, 510
Locke, John, 106
Ludlow quoted, 280
Loeffs, Isaac, 394
Lukin, Henry, 505
Lushington, Thomas, 323
M
Maresius, 213
Marsh, Archbishop, 183
Marvell, Andrew, 342, 344
Massachusetts, General Court of, invites Dr. Owen to Boston, 300, 302
Mather, Cotton, quoted, 3
Nathanael, 501
Samuel, 484
Milton, 46, 105, 137, 495
Monk, General, 282, 283
More, Thomas, 83
Morning Exercise, 359
Morton, Charles, 186
Mosheim quoted, 73, 92, 93
Moulin, Lewis du, 176
Murcot, John, 485
N
Ness’s Antidote to Arminianism, 510
New England Congregationalists,
improper conduct of, 335
Remonstrated with, by their brethren in England, 337
Further remarks on, 493
Nicholas, Sir Edward, 298
O
Orrery, Earl of, 373
Owen, Lewis, 3
Griffith, 3
Henry, Father of Dr. Owen, 3-5
Henry, son of the above, 8
William, son of do. 8, 447
Martin, 314
Mrs., first wife of the Doctor, 36, 37
Mrs., his second wife, 392
Thankful, 175
Oxford, state of the University during the civil wars, 167
Owen’s addresses to it, 169, 172,199
Persons of eminence who held office in it, 175-178
Owen’s account of his colleagues in it, 180
Persons of distinction then educated in it, 181-187
Royal Society then founded in it, 187
Clarendon’s account of the strife of it at the Restoration, 187
Owen’s management of the parties in it, 187
Poetic addresses from it to Cromwell, 189, 191
State of, the early part of last century, 490
P
Parker, Bishop, 182, 338, 341
Parliament, the Long, 54-56
Patient, Thomas, 435
Payne, Thomas, 448
Penn, William, 181, 480
Penruddock’s rising, 156-158
Penry, John, 486
Peters, Hugh, 484
Petto, Henry, 489
Samuel, 508
Plumstead, Augustus, 510
Pococke, Dr. 179
Polhill, Edward, 380, 507
Mrs., 371
Poole, Matthew, 212
Porter, George, 175
Potter, Christopher, 11
Powell, Vavasor, 506
Prayers of Cromwell’s Chaplains, 495
Preaching of Officers of the army, 483
Presbyterians, account of, 38-46
Price, Samuel, 499
Puleston, Lady, 511, 512
Puritans, their sentiments and sufferings, 5-8
Q
Quakers, conduct of, 192, 195
Quick, John, 186
R
Racovian Catechism, 214, 492
Religious liberty, 97
Origin and progress of, 99
Advocates of, 104, 106, 480
Pamphlets on, 479
Restoration, the effects of, 277, 288
Reynolds, Dr. 133
Roberts, Dr. 178
Robertson, Dr., quoted, 498
Robinson, John, 68
Rogers, John, 485
Rule, Gilbert, 420
Rutherford, Samuel, 129

S
Sams, John, 489
Savage, Dr. Motion, 500
Savoy Declaration of Faith, 227-240
Schurmann, Anna Maria, 469
Sedgwick, John and Obadiah, 62
Scotland, Owen’s journey to, 124
His labours in, 125, 126
State of religion in, 127-133
Scudder’s daily Walk, 503
Selden, John, 225
Shields, Alexander, 394
Sherlock, Dr. 378, 380
Singleton, John, 477
Smith, Adam, quoted, 109
Socinianism, progress of, 212-218
South, Dr. 147, 181, 191
Spirit, extravagant views of the, 385, 387
Sprigge, Joshua, 84
Staunton, Dr. 178
Stillingfleet, Dr., 415, 422
Stubb, Henry, 177
Supper, Lord’s, observed weekly by the first Independents, 497
Sylvester, Edward, 9
T
Taylor, Bishop, Jeremy, 101, 102
Thomas, Dr. 503
Timothy, 486
Thompson, Lady, 370, 371
Tillotson, Archbishop, 249, 250, 251
Tregrosse, Thomas, 186
Trevor, Sir John, 377
Trosse, George, 185
Troughton, John, 186
Tryers, account of, 152, 156
V
Vane, Sir Henry, 104
Vernon’s attack on Owen, 345
Vice-Chancellor, Owen’s dress when, 195
Vitringa, 334
U
Uniformity, Act of, 291, 292
Usher, Archbishop, 225
W
Wales, state of religion in, 162, 163
Wall, Thomas, 419
Wallingford House party, 276, 280
Wallis, Dr. 178
Walton, Bishop, 263, 273
War, civil, causes of the, 22-26
Warburton, Bishop, 490
Ward, Bishop, 178
Warwick, Earl of, 79
Watts, Dr. Isaac, -----499
Wells, Algernon, 489
Wesley, John, 186
Wharton, Lord, 375, 444
Whitelocke’s conversation with the Queen of Sweden, 483
Wilkins, Bishop, 178
Wilkinson, Dr. Henry, sen. 177
Wilkinson, Lady Vere, 371
Williams, Dr. Edward, 83, 333
Williams, Roger, 100
Williams, Joseph, 407
Willoughby, Lord, 374
Wilson, Dr. Thomas, 12
Wilson’s History of Dissenting Churches recommended, 500
Wolsley, Sir Charles, 408
Wood, Anthony, often quoted.
Wright’s, Dr., edition of Owen on the Hebrews, 322, 332
Y
Young, Patrick, 452
Z
Zouch, Dr 179
 Notes
[←1]
“I am not obliged to swear allegiance to any master.” — from Horace's Epistle to his
benefactor Maecenas.
[←2]
Preface to the Life of Bishop Sanderson.
[←3]
Dr. William Bates was one of the most eminent of the Puritan divines; he took part in the
Savoy Conference. His collected writings were published in 1700, and fill a large folio
volume. The Dissenters called him silver-tongued Bates. Calamy affirmed that if Bates had
conformed to the Established Church, he might have been raised to any bishopric in the
kingdom. He died in 1699, aged seventy-four.
[←4]
Memoirs, pp. 2, 3.
[←5]
Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxon.
[←6]
Mem.
[←7]
Tree belonging to the family.
[←8]
Rev. of the Nat. of Schism, p. 38.
[←9]
Ibid., p. 3.
[←10]
Hist. of the Puritans, vol. 1. chap. iv. p. 186.
[←11]
Ut supra, 157.
[←12]
Dr. Owen’s Will.
[←13]
Nichol’s Anecdotes, I. p. 64. Birch’s Life of Tillotson, p.238; Weed’s Athen. Ox. II. p. 637.
[←14]
Contrivances of the fanatical conspirators, by W. Smith.
[←15]
Wood’s Athen. Passim.
[←16]
Athen. Ox. II. pp.44, 45.
[←17]
Accepted Frewen (1588-1664) was a priest in the Church of England and Archbishop of York
from 1660 to 1664.
[←18]
Ibid. p. 177.
[←19]
Ibid. p. 57.
[←20]
Ibid p. 63.
[←21]
Biog. Hist. Art. Thos. Darlow.
[←22]
Wood’s Life, p. 92.
[←23]
Gibbon’s Life of Watts, p. 161.
[←24]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. I. pp. 872—879.
[←25]
Mary I, nicknamed “Bloody Mary,” who imprisoned reformers, and burned many at the
stake. Her successor was young Edward VI, a Protestant.
[←26]
Taken from William Cowper’s poem, Hope (c. 1750)
[←27]
Preface to the work on temptation.
[←28]
Punctilious: overly fastidious or meticulous (“picky”); marked by precise accordance with
details (minutiae).
[←29]
Owen on Communion, pp. 309, 310. Ed. 1721.
[←30]
Athen Ox. II. 555.
[←31]
Athen. Ox. II. p.556.
[←32]
Memoirs.
[←33]
Charles was executed on January 30th, 1649.
[←34]
Hist. of the Reb. I. p. 184.
[←35]
Tind. Con. p. 5.
[←36]
Clarendon passim, Sylvester’s Life of Baxter, Part 111. p. 249.
[←37]
The reader will find a full view of this interesting subject in May’s History of the Long
Parliament; in various parts of Clarendon and Whitelocke; and particularly in a valuable
anonymous pamphlet, “An Essay towards attaining a true idea of the Character and Reign of
Charles I, and of the causes of the Civil War.” — 1748.
[←38]
Baxter’s Holy Commonwealth, p. 453, ad finem.
[←39]
Quoted to the Eclectic Rev. vol. VII. p. 11.
[←40]
The London Charterhouse is a historic complex of buildings in Smithfield, London, dating
back to the 14th century; it is within the London Borough of Islington. It takes its name
from a Carthusian priory, founded in 1371 and dissolved in 1537. The site was largely rebuilt
after 1545, as a large courtyard mansion. It was altered and extended after 1611, when it
became an almshouse (hospital) and school, endowed by Thomas Sutton.
[←41]
Memoirs.
[←42]
Another excerpt from Cowper’s poem, Hope.
[←43]
From John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667), book II, pars. 557-561.
[←44]
Origo Mali: the source and origin of evil.
[←45]
See Calvin’s Institutes, Passim.
[←46]
Brandt’s History of the Reform. in the Low Countries, vol. II. Hale’s Letters from the Synod
of Dort.
[←47]
Brandt, i. pp. 318-321. Heylin’s Quinqartiular Hist. p. 633. Neal’s Pur. ii. pp. 132, 138.
[←48]
Deering’s Speeches, p. 13.
[←49]
That is, Owen was granted a living, a paid church office, at Fordham in Essex.
[←50]
Sufferings of the Clergy, p. 320.
[←51]
Memoirs, Dr. Owen’s Will.
[←52]
Baxter’s own Life, i. p. 97, et passim.
[←53]
Review of the true nature of Schism, pp. 33, 34.
[←54]
Puritans iii. chap.vi. p. 295.
[←55]
Ibid. p. 335.
[←56]
Baillie’s Dissuasive, pp. 154-174.
[←57]
Baxter’s own Life, part ii. p. 140.
[←58]
et valeant quantum valere possunt – a Latin proverb: if power can, it will.
[←59]
Baxter’s own Life, part ii. pp. 142-3.
[←60]
Crosby’s History of the Baptists, i. pp. 176, 177.
[←61]
Pref. to part ii.
[←62]
Edward’s Gangrena, part i. p..58.
[←63]
Neal iii. ch. vi. pp. 302-310.
[←64]
Ibid. pp. 310
[←65]
Crosby i, p. 188.
[←66]
p. 73.
[←67]
Crosby i. p. 190,
[←68]
Neal iii. ch. vi. pp. 309-10.
[←69]
Mue: to moult or shed.
[←70]
Areopagitica, Works, p. 393. ed. 1697.
[←71]
Rev. of Schism, p. 33
[←72]
Rev. of Schism, p. 10.
[←73]
Ibid.
[←74]
Ibid. p. 42.
[←75]
Rev. of Schism, p. 34.
[←76]
Ibid. p. 38
[←77]
Ibid. p. 39.
[←78]
Rev. of Schism, p. 48.
[←79]
Nondum edito: not yet published.
[←80]
The Petition and Advice were presented to Parliament in 1657. So that Owen’s change of
sentiment about religious liberty, must have taken place in or about 1645.
[←81]
Preface to Defence of Cotton against Cawdry, pp. 65-67; published in 1658.
[←82]
Works, p. 206.
[←83]
Works, p. 215.
[←84]
Pref. to Def. of Cotton, p. 25.
[←85]
Works, p. 215.
[←86]
Ibid p. 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]
Private Information.
[←94]
Brook’s Lives of the Puritans, vol. iii, p. 295.
[←95]
See for this purpose, “Conder on Protestant Non-conformity.” A work which deserves the
highest praise for its amiable spirit, its scriptural views, and its hitherto unanswered
reasonings.
[←96]
Mosheim’s Commentaries on the affairs of the Christians before the time of Constantine,
vol. i. pp. 263-267; translated by Vidal. Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical Hist. i. lect. vi.
et passim. Owen’s Inquiry, etc. chap v.
[←97]
Fuller’s Ch. Hist, book ix. pp. 167-169. Baillie’s Dissuasive, pp. 13-15.
[←98]
Robertson’s Justification, p. 50.
[←99]
Brook’s Lives, Art. Penry, vol. ii. p. 51.
[←100]
Ibid. Art, Hawkins, vol. i. pp. 133-149.
[←101]
Townsbend’s Historical Col. p. 176.
[←102]
Gibbets: gallows.
[←103]
Prince’s Chron. Hist. i. p. 32. Morton’s New Eng. Mem. p. 2. Baillie’s Diss. p. 17.
[←104]
Brook’s Lives, Articles Robinson, Jacob, Ames.
[←105]
Wilson’s Hist. of the Diss. Churches. i. pp. 36-43.
[←106]
Nar. pp. 3, 4.
[←107]
Erastian: the doctrine that the state is supreme over the church in ecclesiastical matters.
[←108]
The names of these persons were Thos. Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jer. Burroughs, Sydrach
Simpson, 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 the Dissenting
Brethren, as they generally took the lead in the public discussions, and were mostly
employed in drawing up the printed papers. There were above one hundred Ministers in the
Assembly, which sufficiently explains the reason why the Independents were usually
outvoted.
[←109]
Ch. History cent xvii. sect. ii. part ii.
[←110]
Baxter’s own Life part ii. p. 140.
[←111]
Dissuasive p. 53.
[←112]
Laing’s Hist, of Scotland, vol. i. p. 275. — On the language of Laing, I beg to observe that if
the Independency in England was first embraced by the higher class of society, it has never
been the religion of the lower class only. The great body of its supporters have all along been
found in the middling, or mercantile and commercial class of the population. Whether they
are the fools or fanatics of the country may be easily determined.
[←113]
Animadversions: harsh criticisms.
[←114]
Review of the nature of Schism, in reply to Cawdry, pp. 34-36.
[←115]
Preface to Cotton’s Defence against Cawdry, pp. 61, 62.
[←116]
Biog. Brit. v. p. i23.
[←117]
Preface.
[←118]
Acta Synodi Dordiechti, p. 251.
[←119]
p. 173.
[←120]
p. 175.
[←121]
Gangrena, part ii. p. 86.
[←122]
Wood’s Athen. ii. p. 578.
[←123]
Noncon. Mem. iii. pp. 5-7.
[←124]
Epistle prefixed to Vindiciae Evangelicae.
[←125]
Dedication to the Two Sermons
[←126]
p. 251, 4to. ed.
[←127]
Hist. of Eng. vii. p. 26.
[←128]
Works, p,259.
[←129]
Dissenters Sayings, part ii. p. 11.
[←130]
Hudibras, part iii. canto ii.1. par. 1415. [This is a heroic narrative poem written by Samuel
Butler, 1662-78.]
[←131]
Reflections on a slanderous Libel, — Works, p. 620.
[←132]
Rom. 3.8.
[←133]
From Milton’s Paradise Lost – a description of hell.
[←134]
Caput mortuum: dross or worthless remains.
[←135]
Neal’s Hist. of the Pur. iii. p. 550.
[←136]
Bulstrode Whitelocke (1605-1675) — lawyer, writer, parliamentarian, and Lord Keeper of
the Great Seal of England.
[←137]
Ibid. pp. 549-554.
[←138]
Ibid. p. 549.
[←139]
Eccles. Hist. cent. xvii. sect. ii. part ii. Note.
[←140]
Neal iii. p. 593.
[←141]
Owen’s Memoirs, p, 8.
[←142]
Grey’s Examination, vol. iii. p. 358.
[←143]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. 758.
[←144]
Letter to a Friend, etc. pp. 15-18.
[←145]
Decree of the Univ. of Ox. 1683.
[←146]
Only two of the twenty-seven propositions of this celebrated Decree are extracted from
Owen’s writings. The rest are from those of Knox, Buchanan, Calderwood, Goodwin, Baxter,
etc. Dr. Jane was the principal promoter of it; and when it was presented to Charles II, in
the presence of the Duke of York and the chief persons of the Court by Dr. Robert
Huntington (afterwards Bishop of Raphoe), it was very graciously received. — Birch’s Life of
Tillotson, p. 174, The cause of the injured, however, was in due time avenged in the same
style. For on the twenty-third of March, 1710, the House of Lords ordered the Oxford Decree
to be burnt by the hands of the hangman.
[←147]
“I am a Christian.”
[←148]
That is, the whore of Babylon – considered then to be the Romish Pope.
[←149]
p. 40.
[←150]
As for hearth and home.
[←151]
p. 314. fol. works.
[←152]
Milton’s Prose Works.
[←153]
David Hume, The History of England, chap. 58, London, 1762.
[←154]
Cook’s History of the Church of Scotland, Vol. iii. pp. 94, 95.
[←155]
Dissuasive, p. 155.
[←156]
Letters from the Assembly, vol. ii. p. 85.
[←157]
Wealth of Nations, vol. iii. p. 154. – 5th Ed, 1776.
[←158]
Preface to vol. iv. of History of the Puritans.
[←159]
Works, Pol. Ed. p. 329.
[←160]
Ibid. 335.
[←161]
Mr. Asty’s Memoirs of Owen connects his acquaintance with Cromwell with his Sermon
from Rom 4.20. preached Feb. 28, 1649. But this must be a mistake arising from the
confusion sometimes occasioned by the old and new mode of beginning the year. That
Sermon was preached in 1656 according to our reckoning. On the same day 1649, he dates
his address to the house prefixed to his discourse after the King’s death, from Coggeshall.
And the Sermon on Rom. 4 itself shows that he had been in Ireland; consequently, it must
have been preached subsequent to his acquaintance with Cromwell.
[←162]
Memoirs, pp, 9, 10.
[←163]
Whitelocke’s Mem. p.-371.
[←164]
Hume vi. p. 125.
[←165]
Whitelocke, p. 398.
[←166]
That is, no cursing.
[←167]
Neal, iv. p. 4.
[←168]
Maizeaux’ Life of Chillingworth, p. 331.
[←169]
Clarend. Rebel, iv. p. 729
[←170]
Clarend. Lives of Lord Chancellors, ii. p. 126.
[←171]
Love of country.
[←172]
The love of God, and eternal glory.
[←173]
Owen’s Death of Christ, fol. works, p. 47.
[←174]
Book ii. chap. 6.
[←175]
Easter’s own Life, passim.
[←176]
An incurable itch for writing, possesses many – from the Satires of Juvenal, first century
A.D.
[←177]
Logomachy: an argument about words or the meaning of words.
[←178]
Prolix: overly wordy (unnecessarily so).
[←179]
Life, part i. p. 107.
[←180]
Ser. and Tracts, p. 355.
[←181]
Neal, iv. p. 76.
[←182]
Ibid.
[←183]
For the propagation of the faith.
[←184]
Whitelocke, p. 456.
[←185]
Neal iv. pp. 24-26.
[←186]
“These letters,” Hume says, “are the best of Cromwell’s wretched compositions that remain,
and maintain the chief points of the Independent theology.” From their phraseology, I
strongly suspect they were the production of Owen’s pen.
[←187]
Kirkton.
[←188]
Biographia Scoticana, p. 167 ─ Binning was a man of piety, talents, and learning, as his
posthumous works evince. His sermons, considering the time at which he lived, and that he
died in his twenty-sixth year, do him very great honour.
[←189]
Acts of Assembly from 1638 to 1649, printed Edin. 1652, pp. 192, 355, et passim.
[←190]
Mem. p. 456.
[←191]
Preface to “A Little Stone out of the Mountain,” by Lockyer, 1652.
[←192]
Binning’s works, Edin, 1735, p. 518.
[←193]
Rutherford’s Testimony, Edin. Printed 1713.
[←194]
Binning’s works, p. 518.
[←195]
Ibid, p. 516.
[←196]
Baillie’s Letters, vol ii. p. 85.
[←197]
History of his own times, vol. i. p. 80.
[←198]
Neal, vol. iv. p, 54.
[←199]
Kirkton’s History of the Church of Scotland, pp. 54, 55-64.
[←200]
Neal, vol. iv. p. 27.
[←201]
Sylvester, part i. p. 64.
[←202]
Mem. x.
[←203]
The worldly possessions and paid offices of a church (its property and livings or benefices).
[←204]
Neal, vol. iv. 14.
[←205]
Pref. Ad. Div. Jus.
[←206]
Ad. Div. Jus. Pref.
[←207]
Prose Works, p, 282. — Symmon’s Ed. vol. iii. p. 389.
[←208]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 403.
[←209]
Ludlow’s Mem. vol I, p. 331. Ed. 1761.
[←210]
Mem. of the Protect. House of Cromwell, vol. ii. p. 298.
[←211]
Flagellum p. 121.
[←212]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 428.
[←213]
To create an appearance or justification for something, so as to hide its true character.
[←214]
Sermons, p. 137.
[←215]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. p. 777
[←216]
Pref. Ad. Jus. Div.
[←217]
Papers collected in the Cromwelliana.
[←218]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. pp. 782, 783.
[←219]
Werenfelsli opuscula, pp. 304, 305. — Hornbeek, Sum. Cont. pp. 754, 756. Mat 23:8 "But
do not be called ‘Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.”
[←220]
Preface to Cotton’s Defence, pp. 96-98.
[←221]
Wood’s Fasti, edited by Gutch, p. 192.
[←222]
Independency further proved to be a schism, p. 33.
[←223]
Athen. Ox. ii. p. 557.
[←224]
Pref. to Cotton’s Def. p.24.
[←225]
Ibid. p. 37.

[←226]
p. 8.
[←227]
Vol. iv. p. 76.
[←228]
Ibid. iv. p. 74.
[←229]
As a warning or alarm.
[←230]
Neal, iv. pp. 97-102.
[←231]
Sylvester’s Baxter, p. ii. pp. 197-205. Appendix, p. 75. ─ symptoms of sleepiness, with
restricted vision.
[←232]
A persistent determination to disagree.
[←233]
Neal, vol. iv, p. 91.
[←234]
Ibid.
[←235]
Neal, iv. p. 100.
[←236]
Athen. Ox. ii. pp. 556-557.
[←237]
Scobel’s Acts, p. 123.
[←238]
Neal, iv. p. 109.
[←239]
Penruddock’s Uprising – one of a series of uprisings planned by the Sealed Knot (a royalist
group commissioned by Charles II in 1653-54), as part of a Royalist insurrection. It was to
start March 1655.
[←240]
Thurloe’s State Papers, vol. iii. p. 781.
[←241]
Pococke’s Life, prefixed to his Works, p. 41.
[←242]
Calamy’s Life of Howe, pp. 20, 21.
[←243]
Sylvester’s Baxter, part i. p. 72.
[←244]
Thurloe’s State Papers, iii, p. 281.
[←245]
Beadle: a minor parish official who serves a ceremonial function.
[←246]
Abaddon: The destroyer, or angel of the bottomless pit.
[←247]
Letter to a Friend, p. 13.
[←248]
Reflections on a Libel, Works, p. 617.
[←249]
Noble’s Memoirs, ii. p. 533. Ludlow, ii. pp. 71-72.
[←250]
Thurloe’s State Papers, vol, iv. pp. 65, 66.
[←251]
Public Intel. for Dec. 12th, 1656. Whitelocke’s Mem. p. 618. Neal iv. pp. 140-142. Dr. Povey’s
Anglia Judaica.
[←252]
Spence’s Anecdotes, p. 216.
[←253]
Earnest: a deposit, retainer, or down payment in expectation of full payment later.
[←254]
Sermons, p.479.
[←255]
Neal, iv. pp. 116, 120.
[←256]
Ludlow, ii. pp. 131-34.
[←257]
Neal, iv. p. 180.
[←258]
A munitions storehouse.
[←259]
The living quarters.
[←260]
Walker’s Suff. of the Clergy, p. 124. Neal, iii. p. 429.
[←261]
Terence Adelph. iv. vi. 21.
[←262]
Gownsmen: the scholarly teachers of the university, dressed in their hallowed robes of
authority.
[←263]
Oratio, i. pp. 1, 2.
[←264]
Oratio, v. p. 20.
[←265]
The terræ filius (son of the soil) was a satirical orator who spoke at public ceremonies of the
University of Oxford. At Cambridge, the same sort of orator was called the “prevaricator” –
someone whose fanciful lies provoked a debate among the students, as a means to entertain
them. It was theater.
[←266]
Bocardo: a prison located near the church of St Michael; it consisted of rooms in a
watchtower by Oxford's North Gate.
[←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 from
satisfactory; during his tenure of office, much of the college estates were leased as livings to
his friends and relations.
[←271]
Wood’s Fasti, 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’s Life, p. 10.
[←278]
Ward’s Lives, 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, vol ii. p 753.
[←284]
Non-con. Mem. vol. i. p. 257.
[←285]
Calamy’s Life of Howe.
[←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. - Conanti nihil difficile (using his name), means attempting anything hard.
[←292]
Neal, vol. iii. p. 469.
[←293]
Ibid, vol iii. 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: someone who conforms to current ways and opinions for personal advantage.
[←298]
Ibid, vol. ii. p. 627.
[←299]
Neal, vol. iii. p. 472.
[←300]
Pococke’s Life, prefixed to his works.
[←301]
Wood’s Athen. vol. ii. p. 166. – Civilian: someone skilled in civil law.
[←302]
Ibid, p. 140.
[←303]
Neal, vol. iii. p. 459.
[←304]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 113.
[←305]
Birch’s Life of Boyle, pp. 54-56. Robert Boyle (1627-1691) — philosopher, chemist, physicist,
and inventor. He is regarded as the first modern chemist, and helped pioneer the scientific
method. He is best known for Boyle's Law.
[←306]
Pref. ad Diat. Dir. Jus. — The account which the historian Gibbon gives of the state of
Oxford in the middle of the last century, when he passed some time in it, is very melancholy,
and forms a singular contrast with the view which the preceding statements afford of the
learning, industry, and piety which adorned it in the days of misrule and fanaticism. “If I
inquire,” he says, “into the manufactures of the Monks of Magdalen, if I extend the inquiry
to the other Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, a silent blush or a scornful frown will be the
only reply. The Fellows, or Monks of my time, were decent, easy men, who supinely enjoyed
the gifts of the founder. Their days were filled by a series of uniform employments — the
Chapel and the Hall, the Coffee House, and the Common Room — till they retired, weary
and well satisfied, to a long slumber. From the toil of reading, or thinking, or writing they
had absolved their consciences; and the first shoots of learning and ingenuity withered on
the ground, without yielding any fruits to the owners or the public. As a Gentleman
Commoner, I was admitted to the society of the Fellows, and fondly expected that some
questions of literature would be the amusing and instructive topics of their discourse. Their
conversation stagnated in a round of College business, Tory politics, personal anecdotes,
and private slander. Their dull and deep potations excused the brisk intemperance of youth;
and their constitutional toasts were not expressive of the most lively loyalty for the House of
Hanover.” — Gibbon’s Memoirs of his own Life and Writings, vol. i. p. 38.
[←307]
Birch’s Life of Tillotson, p. 124.
[←308]
South ‘s Life.
[←309]
Life of Anthony Wood, p. 85.
[←310]
Biog. Dict.
[←311]
Wood’s Fasti, vol, ii, p. 797.
[←312]
Ibid. p. 772.
[←313]
Ibid, p. 792.
[←314]
Wood’s Life.
[←315]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 495.
[←316]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. p. 780.
[←317]
Ibid. vol. ii. p. 792. — Birch’s Life of Boyle.
[←318]
Hist. of his own times, vol. i. p. 280.
[←319]
Biog. Dict.
[←320]
Birch’s Life of Tillotson, p. 185.
[←321]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. p. 786 — Birch’s Life of Tillotson, pp.137, 138.
[←322]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 629.
[←323]
Grueller: someone who works to the point of exhaustion, or exacts severe punishment on
themselves or others.
[←324]
Ibid. vol. ii; pp. 616, 621.
[←325]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 647.
[←326]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. p. 617. Nonjuror: Someone who refuses to swear a particular oath;
specifically, a clergyman who refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary in
1689.
[←327]
Ibid, vol. ii. p. 780.
[←328]
Ibid.
[←329]
Ibid, p. 793.
[←330]
Biog. Dict.
[←331]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. p. 793.
[←332]
Ibid. — Biog. Dict.
[←333]
Fasti, vol. ii p. 796.
[←334]
Ibid. vol. ii. p. 802. — Burnet’s own Times, iv. p. 110.
[←335]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 685.
[←336]
Burnet’s own Times, i. p. 273.
[←337]
Burnet’s own Times, i. p. 278.
[←338]
Biog. Hist.
[←339]
Athen. Ox. vol, ii. p. 491.
[←340]
Memoirs of Philip Henry, by his Son, p. 19.
[←341]
Calamy’s Continuation, 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’s Lives.
[←346]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 511.
[←347]
Non-con. Mem. vol. i. 347.
[←348]
Calamy’s Life of Baxter, and Continuation — Non con. Mem. passim.
[←349]
Thomson’s History of the Royal Society, pp. 1, 2.
[←350]
History of the Rebellion, vol. iii. p. 57.
[←351]
Memoirs, p. xi.
[←352]
Memoirs, p. xii.
[←353]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. ii. p. 788.
[←354]
Life of Philip Henry, p. 17.
[←355]
Independency further proved to be a schism, p. 30.
[←356]
Ser. iii.p. 544.
[←357]
I examined this curious volume in the British Museum, and extracted Owen’s verses from it;
but some account of it is furnished by Dr. Harris in the Life of Cromwell, pp. 369, 370.
[←358]
life of Anthony Wood, pp. 132-136.
[←359]
Sewel’s History of the Quakers, pp. 90, 91.
[←360]
pp. 57, 58.
[←361]
Sermons and Tracts, pp. 619, 620.
[←362]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 557.
[←363]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 619.
[←364]
Vernon, p. 22. Halliday’s Life of Lord Mansfield, p. 172.
[←365]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 556.
[←366]
Perstringing: criticizing or censuring.
[←367]
Inceptor: the commencement speaker.
[←368]
Evelyne’s Memoirs, vol. i. p. 276.
[←369]
Works, pp. 618, 619.
[←370]
This is not the first time that the Independents had been represented as men of gayety and
fashion. “You shall find them the only gallants in the world,” says Bastwick, “so that one who
meets them would take them for roarers and ruffians, rather than saints. Indeed, you will
find them with cuffs, and those great ones at their very heels; and with more silver and gold
upon their clothes and at their heels (for those upstarts must now have silver spurs) than
many great and honourable personages have in their purses.” (from Bastwick’s utter routing
of the Independent army: Preface to the Reader) Who would think that the Independents
were the grim-faced hypocrites of the Commonwealth? But for the counterpart of Owen, see
Addison’s description of an Independent Divine, supposed to be Dr. Goodwin, Spectator,
No. 494. Among the other charges brought against them by Edwards is, “Their going in such
fine fashionable apparel, and wearing long hair, as ‘tis a shame; they feast, ride on journeys,
and do servile business on the Fast days. And let a man but turn Sectary now-a-days, and
within one half year, he is so metamorphosed in apparel, hair, etc. that a man hardly knows
him.” — Gangrena, p. i. page 62.
[←371]
Biog. Hist. iii. p. 301.
[←372]
Splenetic: prickly, peevish, spiteful.
[←373]
Ibid. p. 302
[←374]
Oratio ad Richardum Crom.
[←375]
The numbers were left blank in the Oration — I have supplied them as far as I can from
Wood; but they may not be quite accurate.
[←376]
Oratio, v. p. 22.
[←377]
Prolocutor: presiding officer.
[←378]
Prefatio.
[←379]
Ibid.
[←380]
Mead is an intoxicating beverage made of fermented honey and water.
[←381]
Vindiciae Supremi Dei Domini (cum Deo) Initae: Sive Theses aliquot, et Thesium Instantiae
opposititae nuper Doct. Audoeni Diatribae de Justitia Peccati Vindicatrice, etc. Lond. 1655,
8vo
[←382]
Baxter’s own life, part i. p. 116.
[←383]
Odium theologicum: bitterness typical of religious controversies, giving rise to an unyielding
refusal to continue a discussion.
[←384]
Baxter’s own Life, part i. p. 110.
[←385]
Pref. to the Div. Origin of the Scriptures, Ox. 1659.
[←386]
Neal, vol. iii. p. 497.
[←387]
Scobel’s Acts. Crosby’s Hist. of the Bap. i. pp. 199-205.
[←388]
John Milton, “On the New Forcers of Conscience.” In this poem he attacks the Presbyterian
leaders for becoming forcers of thought and conscience as bad as Archbishop Laud and his
fellow-prelates had been.
[←389]
Biddle’s Tracts and Life. Toulmin’s Life of Biddle, Athen. Ox. ii. p. 197.
[←390]
Neal, vol. iv. pp. 135, 136.
[←391]
Pref. p. 69.
[←392]
Pref. pp.68-69.
[←393]
Preface. Principle refers to a governing rule of life – that which drives, guides, and measures
our conduct.
[←394]
Scholia: marginal notes written by a commentator on ancient literature – in this case, on the
Bible.
[←395]
Watchii Bib. Selecta, tom. i. p. 912.
[←396]
Lilly’s life, by himself, passim.
[←397]
Walker’s Suff. of the Clergy, part ii. p. 132.
[←398]
Dedicatory Epis. to the Divine Origin, of the Scriptures.
[←399]
See Dunlop on the ends and uses of Creeds and Confessions; and the Confessional of Arch-
deacon Blackburn, for the pro and con of this subject.
[←400]
The designation of Independents is supposed to have been derived from the following
sentence in this work. “Coetum quemlibet particularem, esse totam, integrum, et perfectam
ecclesiam ex suis partibus constantem, immediate et independenter (quoad alias ecclesias)
sub ipso Christo.” Cap. v. That the denomination Independent was not assumed, but given,
is evident from the titles of many of the early defences of the body, and from their repeated
protests against the misconstruction which this term occasioned. They claimed to be
Independent of other churches merely in the exercise of discipline. In this sense, all other
churches profess to be Independent, as no church allows the exercise of authority, or the
right of interference, beyond its own body. The work from which I have quoted the above
sentence is one of the many proofs that might be adduced, that the Brownists were neither
destitute of learning, nor enemies to it.
[←401]
Neal, vol. iv. 188.
[←402]
Peek’s Desiderata Curiosa. ii. 591.
[←403]
Neal, vol. iv. pp. 189, 190.
[←404]
“We rather give this notice,” say the Prefacers to the Savoy Declaration, “because that copy
of the Parliament’s, followed by us, is in few men’s hands; the other as it came from the
Assembly, being approved of in Scotland, was printed and hastened into the world, before
the Parliament had declared their resolutions about it; and yet it has been, and continues to
be, the only copy ordinarily sold, printed, and reprinted for these eleven years.”
[←405]
2Pet 2.19.
[←406]
It is common for some who abuse modern Independents, to profess great respect for the
early founders of the denomination. This, however, is a mere pretence — as the same
afflictions were endured by them, which are accomplished in their brethren, who are now in
the world. Time and juxtaposition produce many curious changes; but truth and piety are
still the same, and invariably experience the same treatment.
[←407]
Sylvester’s Baxter, part i. p. 164. Baxter’s Catholic Communion Defended, part v. p. 8.
[←408]
Memoirs of Dr. Owen, pp.21-22.
[←409]
Memoirs, pp. 42-44, where Owen’s letter to Du Moulin is inserted; but it is not now of
enough importance to reprint.
[←410]
Besides the first edition, printed in 1659, I have met with the following editions of the Savoy
Declaration. An edition in 18mo, 1688, one in 8vo. 1729; one in Ipswich, in 8vo. 1745, and
one in 8vo. published at Oswestry, in 1812.
[←411]
Baxt. Life, part i. pp. 98-101.
[←412]
Letter to a friend, p. 9.
[←413]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 617.
[←414]
Jortin’s Remarks on Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 270.
[←415]
Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, by Jonathan Edwards, 1741. pp. 29,
31. The whole Tract is deserving of an attentive perusal.
[←416]
Precisian: An over-precise person; one rigidly or ceremoniously exact in the observance of
rules.
[←417]
Baxter’s Non-conformist’s Plea for Peace, p. 130.
[←418]
Disquisitions on several subjects, by Soame Jenyns p. 164.
[←419]
Hist. of his own Time, vol, i. p. 116.
[←420]
p. 17.
[←421]
“The Bishop’s hearsays,” says Lord Lansdowne, “are, in most cases, very doubtful. His
history is little else but ‘such a one told such a one,’ and ‘such a one told me.’ This sort of
testimony is allowed in no case; nor can the least certainty be built upon stories handed
about from one to another, which must necessarily alter in the several repetitions by
different persons.” Lord Lansdowne’s Works, vol. ii. p. 179. — “I have never,” says Sir John
Dalrymple, “tried Burnet’s facts by the test of dates and original papers, without finding
them wrong.” — Memoirs of Great Britain, p. 34.
[←422]
Those who amuse themselves with the prayers and fasting of the Protector, may contrast
with the picture drawn by Tillotson, the following scene on the Lord’s day evening in the
court of his royal successor. It is described by Evelyne, a respectable and religious man, but
no fanatic, as he was a devoted friend of the Church and of the royal family. “I can never
forget the inexpressible luxury and profaneness, gaming and all dissoluteness, and as it
were, total forgetfulness of God, it being Sunday, which I was witness of this day se’nnight.
The King sitting and toying with his concubines; Portsmouth, Cleaveland, and Mazarine,
etc. A French boy singing love songs in that glorious gallery, while about seventy of the great
courtiers and other dissolute persons were at Basset [a card game resembling faro] round a
large table, a bank of at least £2000 in gold before them; upon which the gentlemen who
were with me made reflections with astonishment.” — Memoirs vol. i. p. 585. This single
scene speaks volumes on the dissoluteness and impiety of the court of Charles, and the
awful effects which it must have produced on the country. Looking back but a few years, well
might the people exclaim, O tempora! O mores! [What times! What conduct!]
[←423]
Esoteric: confined to and understandable by only an enlightened inner circle (gnostic).
[←424]
Pentralia: the innermost parts; i.e., the deep things of God (1Cor 2.10).
[←425]
Pantomime: gestures and body movements without words; here it means form without
substance, as though “going through the motions” without understanding.
[←426]
More properly, regeneration by the Holy Spirit. They must be reborn to see the kingdom of
God (Joh 3.3). They were dead in their trespasses and sins; but in Christ, they are made
alive by God (Eph 2.1-9; Col 2.9-14).
[←427]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 560.
[←428]
Horne’s Preface to his commentary on Psalms (1812).
[←429]
pp. 43, 44.
[←430]
Diss. ix, part iii.
[←431]
Brutum fulmen: an empty (baseless) threat.
[←432]
Works, vol. i, p. 114. That is, they use it to silence any questions or challenges, voiced by the
timid.
[←433]
Mellus Inquirend, p. 209.
[←434]
Pref. to Div. Origin. of the Scriptures.
[←435]
Nonconf. Mem. vol. ii. pp. 214-216.
[←436]
p. 15.
[←437]
The wording is a bit obtuse. Owen is saying that the church of England was not originally
Presbyterian – as that party readily admits. If anything, it was a group of independent
churches. When it changed to an Episcopacy, none claimed to be separating from
Independency in order to create that Episcopacy. Essentially, Owen asks why it is now an
issue to remain Independent, as the English church was originally? That’s not “schism;” it’s
standing firm. That corresponds with the Savoy Preface (p. 261 above) saying they didn’t
break away; the others did. See also p. 299 below. – WHG
[←438]
Orig. “exercitations” - a discourse performed as a display of skill, or to unravel the
intricacies of some subject.
[←439]
Edited by Anglican Bishop Brian Walton. Among his collaborators were James Ussher, John
Lightfoot and Edward Pococke, Edmund Castell, Abraham Wheelocke and Patrick Young,
Thomas Hyde and Thomas Greaves. The proposals for the Polyglot appeared in 1652. The
book itself came out in six great folios. The first in 1654 and the last in 1657. Nine languages
are used: Hebrew, Chaldee, Samaritan, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Greek, and Latin.
[←440]
Le Long Bib. Sacra, tom. i. pp. 13, 20, 27-33. Ed. 1709.
[←441]
Imprimatur: formal and explicit approval.
[←442]
Walchii Bib. Theol. iv. pp. 268-270. Kennicott’s Hist, of the Heb. Text, vol. ii. of his
Dissertations.
[←443]
In the latter part of the Preface to the Polyglot, when it was first published, the following
passage occurs: —"Primo autem commemorandi, quorum favore chartam a vectigalibus
immunem hobuimus, quod quiuque ab hinc annis a Concilio secretiori primo concessum,
postea a Serenissimo Protectore, ejusque concilio operis promovendi causa, benigue
confirmatum et continuatum crat.” When the Bible was prescribed to Charles II in 1669, the
two last leaves of the Preface were cancelled, and three others substituted in their place, in
which the passage runs thus: “Inter hos effusiore bonitate labores nostros prosecuti sunt
(praeter eos quorum favore chartam a vectigalibus immunem habuimus); Serenissimus
Princeps D. Carolus [i.e., Charles],” etc. Few of the copies with the original Preface were
published, as Walton probably foresaw the approaching change; but a republican copy,
being a greater rarity, now brings a better price than a royal one.
[←444]
Marsh’s Theol. Lect. vii.
[←445]
Crosby’s Baptists vol. i. pp. 359-363.
[←446]
Sewel’s History of the Quakers, pp. 133-257.
[←447]
Neal.vol. iv.p. 209.
[←448]
The absurdity of the construction put on the words of Owen’s prayer is more evident when it
is acknowledged that Dr. Manton did not so understand them till after Richard’s deposition.
Non-con. Mem. vol. i. p. 201. Mr. Palmer mentions in the Non-con. Mem. vol. iii. p. 401,
that he had met with a manuscript defence of Mr. Baxter’s conduct, in charging the
deposition of Richard upon Dr. Owen, which he meant to deposit in the Red Cross-street
Library; but no such manuscript was ever lodged there.
[←449]
Baxter’s Life, part 1. p. 101. part iii. p. 42.
[←450]
Vind. of Animad. on Fiat Lux, pp. 10-12.
[←451]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 617. The Latin means, “It’s a shameless lie.”
[←452]
Asseveration: an emphatic declaration.
[←453]
p. 19.
[←454]
Vol. ii. pp. 917-922.
[←455]
Baxter’s answer to Owen’s twelve arguments, p. 27.
[←456]
Ludlow’s Mem. vol. ii. p. 181. — Ed. 1751.
[←457]
Whitelocke’s Memoirs, p. 679.
[←458]
Ibid. p. 683.
[←459]
George Monck (1608-1670) – 1st Duke of Albemarle; English soldier and politician, and a
key figure in the Restoration of the monarchy to Charles II in 1660.
[←460]
Skinner’s Life of Monk, p. 103.
[←461]
Baker’s Chron. 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]
Letter to a Friend, p. 28.
[←467]
Conventicle: a building for religious assembly (especially Nonconformists).
[←468]
Memoirs, p. xxxii.
[←469]
Thomas Venner became the last leader of the Fifth Monarchy Men, who tried unsuccessfully
to overthrow Oliver Cromwell in 1657; they then led a coup against the newly restored king
Charles II. This was known as "Venner's Rising." It lasted four days before the rebels were
captured. They were executed 19 January 1661.
[←470]
Referring to eschatology and the restoration of Israel prior to Christ's return, called
Chiliasm, the Golden Age, or the Jewish Dream. The second Helvetic Confession (1566)
states, "We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before
the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will
possess all the kingdoms of the earth." The amillennial view is that the millennium is the
Church Age, during which the church is more or less persecuted until Christ returns, which
is Judgment Day. – WHG
[←471]
Neal, iv. p 311, 312.
[←472]
The Indemnity and Oblivion Act of 1660 was a general pardon for everyone who committed
crimes during the Civil War and Interregnum, with the exception of certain crimes such as
murder, piracy, and rape; and with the exception of people named in the act, who were
involved in the regicide of Charles I.
[←473]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 557.
[←474]
Sermons and Tracts, 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, and
transmitted by him to the late Mr. Palmer, of Hackney; who inserted it in the Protestant
Dissenter’s Magazine, vol. iii. p. 447. Mr. Endicott, was Governor of the Colony, and a very
excellent and much respected man. He went to Salem in the year 1628, and had chief
command of those who first settled there, in whose difficulties and sufferings he largely
participated. He continued there till the jurisdiction of Massachusetts desired his removal to
Boston for the more convenient administration of justice, as Governor of the Colony; to
which office he was elected for many years with little intermission. He served God and his
country till, old age and infirmities coming upon him, he fell asleep in the Lord, in 1665, in
the 77th year of his age. — Morton’s New England Mem. pp. 176, 177.
[←478]
Hutchinson’s Hist. of Massachusetts. vol. i. p. 226.
[←479]
Non-con. Mem. vol. i. p. 202.
[←480]
Baxter’s own Life, part iii. p. 19.
[←481]
Memoirs, p. 25.
[←482]
Baxter’s own Life, part iii. pp.61-69.
[←483]
Part ii. pp. 188-192
[←484]
Ibid. part ii. p. 193.
[←485]
See Heads of Agreement.
[←486]
Sermons, p. 178.
[←487]
Cure, p. 144.
[←488]
Baxter’s own Life, part iii. p. 73.
[←489]
Peck’s Desiderata, vol. ii. p. 547.
[←490]
I use, for the sake of convenience, the 8vo. Edition, by the Rev. George Wright, in 7 vols.
Edin. 1813.
[←491]
Copia verborum: an abundance of words; a rich or full vocabulary.
[←492]
Dr. Wright’s Preface, pp. iii, iv.
[←493]
Clarkson’s Fun. Ser.
[←494]
Walch. Bib. Selecta, iv. p. 788.
[←495]
Matthew Poole, Synopsis Criticorum (Synopsis of Interpreters). This text is a verse-by-verse
summary of the history of interpretation. He includes the old Jewish doctors, the early
Church Fathers, Medieval Rabbis, Reformation-era Romanists, Lutherans, and the
Reformed.
[←496]
Consistent Independency can never be accountable for anything except what is done by the
Churches and their office bearers, separately assembled. The proceedings of delegated
bodies or representatives, in conjunction with civil authority, are obviously at variance with
its first principles. It was entirely by meetings of the latter [civil] description that all the
persecuting measures in New England were adopted. A full view of their injurious nature, as
well as of the length of time during which they continued to operate, will be found in
Backus’ Church Hist. of New England, 2 vols. 1777-1784.
[←497]
Neal’s New England, vol. i. passim.
[←498]
Magnalia Americana, book vii. p. 28.
[←499]
That is, condemned.
[←500]
Vitringa, Doct. Christ. Pars vi. p. 6. Edit. 1776.
[←501]
Orig. calumniate: to falsely charge or with malicious intent; attack the good name and
reputation of someone.
[←502]
Sylvest. iii. p. 42.
[←503]
pp. 113-115.
[←504]
John Bramhall (1594-1663) – Bishop of Derry, and Archbishop of Armagh (with Ussher and
Bedell). He defended the English Church from both Puritan and Roman Catholic
accusations, and against Hobbes’ views of materialism and liberty (free will). He was heavily
involved in the reconstruction of the Church of Ireland, imposing Archbishop Laud’s
reforms during the reign of Charles I. Thus he was a key figure in the persecution of the
Puritans.
[←505]
Andrew Marvell (1621-1678) –English poet, satirist and politician, sometime member of the
House of Commons. During the Commonwealth period, he was a colleague and friend of
John Milton.
[←506]
Burnet’s own times, vol. i. p. 382.
[←507]
“Jesting oft cuts hard knots more forcefully and effectively than gravity.” — Horace
[←508]
Athen, Ox. vol. ii. p. 619.
[←509]
D’Israeli’s quarrels of Authors, vol. ii. p. 204.
[←510]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 588.
[←511]
Neal, vol. iv. p. 350, Edit. 1755.
[←512]
“Not such aid nor such defenders [do the times require].” — Virgil.
[←513]
Athen. Ox. Bliss. iv.—605
[←514]
Metropolitan — an archbishop presiding over other bishops within his jurisdiction; here
used sarcastically.
[←515]
Sermons and Tracts, p 615.
[←516]
Slander boldly, something always sticks.
[←517]
Bayle’s Dict., Valerian. – meaning, “You lie shamelessly.”
[←518]
Provincial Letters.
[←519]
Greek mythology — a mythical giant who was a thief and murderer; he would capture people
and tie them to an iron bed, stretching them or hacking off their legs to make them fit;
Procrustes was killed by Theseus.
[←520]
Epist. ded. to Melius Inquirendum. “Take the law, and let it speak.”
[←521]
“It does not satisfactorily appear that he was invited to the Presidency of Harvard College.”
Holmes’ American Annals, vol. i. p. 321.
[←522]
Magnalia Americana, book iv.
[←523]
Hutchison’s Coll. of Original Papers, pp. 429-431.
[←524]
Mass. Coll. for 1799, p. 108.
[←525]
Book of Sports, formally Declaration of Sports, was an order issued by King James I of
England for use in Lancashire to resolve a conflict on the subject of Sunday recreations,
between the Puritans and the gentry — many of whom were Roman Catholics. Permission
was given for dancing, archery, leaping and vaulting, and for “having of May games,
Whitsun ales and morris dances, setting up May-poles and other sports used with it, so as to
be without impediment or neglect of divine service. Women shall have leave to carry rushes
to church for decorating it.” On the other hand, “bear and bull-baiting, interludes, and…
bowling” were not to be permitted on Sunday. In 1618 James ordered all English clergy to
read the declaration from the pulpit. But so strong was the Puritan opposition to Sunday
amusements, that he prudently withdrew his command. In 1633 Charles I not only directed
the republication of his father’s declaration, but insisted on the clergy reading it. Many of
the clergy were punished for refusing to obey the injunction. When Charles was overthrown
during the English Civil Wars, Puritan prohibitions against sports and games on the
Sabbath again prevailed, until Charles II was restored in 1660.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Book-of-Sports
[←526]
Vol. ii. of Wright’s Ed. of Owen on the Hebrews, pp. 450-453.
[←527]
Ibid. p. 455.
[←528]
The imagination of the Anglicans.
[←529]
Mather’s Magnalia, b. iii. p. 178.
[←530]
Insolated: exposed to the rays of the sun.
[←531]
Eclat: enthusiastic approval, with accompanying pomp and circumstance.
[←532]
The necessity of defending the sacred obligation of the day of rest, at this time, appears to
have impressed others as well as Dr, Owen. Within a few months of each other, there
appeared, besides Owen’s work, “Aphorisms concerning the doctrine of the Sabbath,” by the
Rev. George Hughes of Plymouth, edited by his son, Obadiah Hughes; and “The Divine
appointment of the Lord’s Day,” by Richard Baxter. Both these works are valuable, and
support the same views which are maintained by Owen, though neither of them treats the
subject so fully or so ably as the Doctor. Baxter takes particular notice of the dangerous
sentiments of Heylin, in his history of the Sabbath, and points out his perversions, both of
Scripture testimony, and of Christian antiquity, to support his lax principles.
[←533]
Recusants: Under a 1558 Act of Recusancy, the term referred to those who remained loyal to
the pope and the Roman Catholic Church, and did not attend Church of England services. It
then came to be used against the Dissenters, who likewise refused to attend the services.
Cromwell suspended the Act to give relief to non-conforming Protestants, rather than to
Catholics. But under Charles II, Protestant Dissenters again fell under its penalties.
[←534]
Owen’s Address to the Reader, prefixed to his Answer to Stillingfleet.
[←535]
Baxter’s own Life, part iii. p. 99.
[←536]
Gentleman’s Magazine, vol. xxxi. p. 253. It was sent by a Gentleman, who signs himself R.
W. and who vouches for its authenticity, and thinks it was never published. I suppose this
was the Rev. Richard Winter, a Dissenting Minister in London, of high respectability.
[←537]
When we speak of a “post office,” we mean where letters are “posted” for delivery to the
recipient. The day is coming, perhaps, when letters are no longer posted, and only email or
digital text messages are known. – WHG
[←538]
Letter to a Friend, p. 34.
[←539]
Tobias Crisp (1600–1643) He was a Calvinist; but a serious controversy arose from the
republication of his works in the 1690s (e.g., Christ Alone Exalted). He so emphasized free
grace, that it was received as antinomian, by those who sounded like legalists. Works are to
be placed under sanctification, not justification, as Owen made clear in his treatise on the
Mortification of Sin. – WHG
[←540]
Hilary (310-367), Bishop of Poitiers. This is taken from the title page of his “Discourse
Concerning Christian Love and Peace.”– quoted here by Owen. “Splendid indeed is the
name Peace, and beautiful is a united opinion; but who doubts that the only Peace of the
Church, is that of Christ?”
[←541]
Wilson’s Hist. of the Diss. Churches, vol. i. p. 252.
[←542]
Dorney’s Div. Contemplations, p. 344.
[←543]
Wilson’s Hist. of the Diss. Churches, vol. i. p. 253.
[←544]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 175.
[←545]
Wilson’s Diss. Churches, vol. i. p. 253.
[←546]
Noble’s Mem. vol. ii. pp. 333-348. (Roughly £4.5 million in 2005 – WHG).
[←547]
See Appendix.
[←548]
Biog. Hist. vol. iii. p. 18.
[←549]
Noble, loc cit.
[←550]
Baxter’s own Life, Part i. pp. 57-97. Noble’s Mem. vol. ii. p. 507.
[←551]
An excellent letter from Dr. Owen to Lady Hartopp, on the occasion of the death of an infant
daughter, will be found in the Appendix.
[←552]
Gibbon’s Life of Watts, pp. 92—96. Watts’ Death and Heaven.
[←553]
Noble’s Mem. vol. ii. pp. 243-250.
[←554]
Biog. Hist. vol. iii. p. 72.
[←555]
Gibbon’s Life of Watts, p. 103.
[←556]
Walpole’s Works, vol. i. p. 129.
[←557]
Howe’s Works, vol. ii. p. 461.
[←558]
The Life and Errors of John Dunton, p. 499.
[←559]
See Appendix.
[←560]
Sylvester, part iii. pp. 153, 155.
[←561]
Sermons and Tracts, p. 586
[←562]
Memoirs, p. 29.
[←563]
Walpole’s Works, vol. i. p. 514. Granger, vol. iii. p. 226.
[←564]
Walpole’s Works, vol. i. pp. 411, 412. Athen. Ox. Bliss, vol. iv. pp. 182, 187.
[←565]
Memoirs of Owen prefixed to the 8vo. Ed. of his Sermons, 1720,
[←566]
Whitelocke’s Mem. passim.
[←567]
Collection of Locke’s Pieces, p. 116.
[←568]
Memoirs. p. 48.
[←569]
Howe’s Works, vol. ii. p. 102.
[←570]
Athen. Ox. Bliss, iv. p. 625. Granger, vol. iii. p. 212.
[←571]
Noble’s Mem. vol. ii. pp. 138-143.
[←572]
Hutchison’s Col. or original papers.
[←573]
This was probably the first of those Royal grants to the Dissenters, which have since
received the designation of the Regium Donum. They began to be regularly paid in the year
1723, during the administration of Sir Robert Walpole, and continue to be distributed to the
present time, among poor Dissenting Ministers of the three denominations. A curious
account of them will be found in the London Magazine for 1774, and in Dyer’s Life of
Robinson, p. 237.
[←574]
Memoirs, p. 30. Pref. to Answer to Stillingfleet.
[←575]
Life and Times, vol, ii, p. 16.
[←576]
Page 74.
[←577]
Calamy, vol. ii. p. 69.
[←578]
Illapse: falling or gliding into some sort of transcendental state.
[←579]
To the point of nausea.
[←580]
Such religious experiences, imagined and ungrounded in Scripture, were lamented and
refuted 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 in
search of spirituality (2Th 2.11-12). – WHG
[←581]
Familiar: A spirit that acts as an assistant or guide to the realm beyond the tangible.
[←582]
Vol. ii. p. 290.
[←583]
Biog. Brit. vol. iii. p. 598, Ed. Kippis.
[←584]
William Cowper, Conversation.
[←585]
Memoirs, p. 48.
[←586]
Owen’s Will.
[←587]
Memoirs, p. 32.
[←588]
Someone skilled in the transcription (dictation).
[←589]
Calamy’s Account, vol. ii. p. 383. Continuation, vol. i. p. 544. Ferguson is described in a
proclamation issued in 1683, as “a tall, lean man, dark brown hair, a great Roman nose,
thin-jawed, heat in his face, speaks in the Scotch tone, a sharp piercing eye, stoops a little in
the shoulders, he has a shuffling gait that differs from all men, wears his periwig down
almost over his eyes, about 15 years of age. Granger’s Biog. Hist. vol, iv. p. 201. It is curious
that, while warrants were issued to apprehend him, the messengers had orders to shun him
or let him escape. Calamy ut supra.
[←590]
Those who wish to see the cause of the Scotch Covenanters ably defended, with a statement
of their grievous wrongs, ought to consult this book. While I by no means subscribe to all the
opinions which it maintains, I feel constrained to do justice to the talent with which it is
written, the manly abhorrence of tyranny which it avows, and its jealous defence of the
exclusive rights of Jesus as the Head of his Church.
[←591]
Biog. Scoticana, pp. 367, 368.
[←592]
Non-C0n. Mem. vol. ii. pp. 312, 313.
[←593]
Ibid. vol. i. pp. 220, 221.
[←594]
Life, Part iii. p. 97.
[←595]
Life of Tillotson, p. 4. This was his “Primitive Episcopacy, stated and clarified from the Holy
Scriptures, and ancient Records.” 8vo. 1688. In this work, he successfully proves that a
Bishop, in the days of the apostles, and for three centuries afterwards, was no more than a
pastor of a single Congregation. His “Discourse concerning Liturgies,” printed in 1689,
successfully shows that no forms of prayer were prescribed or imposed during the first four
centuries; “till the state of the Church was rather to be pitied than imitated; and what was
discernible in it, different from preceding times, were wrecks and ruins rather than
patterns,” p. 198. Both works abound with valuable learning, and cogent reasonings, and are
entitled to a distinguished place in the Episcopal controversy.
[←596]
The Great Ejection, caused by the Act of Uniformity 1662. Two-thousand Puritans were
ejected from their pulpits.
[←597]
Non-con. Mem, vol. iii. pp. 305, 306
[←598]
Bate’s Works, pp. 841. 842.
[←599]
Owen’s Memoirs, p. 30.
[←600]
Ivimey’s Hist. of the Eng. 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 of
Kidderminster. “At last, the time of his (Mr. Grimshaw’s, an active clergyman of the Church
of England) deliverance came. At the house of one of his friends he lays his hand on a book,
and opens it with his face towards a pewter shelf. Instantly his face is saluted with an
uncommon flash of heat. He turns to the title page, and finds it to be Mr. Owen on
Justification. Immediately he is surprised with such another flash. He borrows the book,
studies it, is led into God’s method of justifying the ungodly, has a new heart given to him,
and now behold, he prays.” Whether these flashes were electrical or galvanic, as Southey in
his Life of Wesley supposes, it deserves to be noticed that it was not the flash, but the book
which converted Grimshaw. The occurrence which turned his attention to it, is of
importance merely as the secondary cause which, under the mysterious direction of
Providence, led to a blessed result.
[←606]
Humf. Mediocria, p. 56.
[←607]
I suppose you know his book of Justification was particularly written against mine. Very
many have pressed me to answer it, which I acknowledge to you, I did not look upon as
duram provinciam [difficult province]. The great friendship that was between him and me,
might well seem sufficient to have biased me not to reply; but the true reason was, I thought
that little cottage I had erected was in no great danger of being shocked or demolished by
anything in that book,” — Letter from Sir Charles Wolsey to Mr. Umfrey, inserted in the
Mediocria.
[←608]
Whitelocke and Ludlow, passim.
[←609]
p. 10. Edit. 1731.
[←610]
“Oh ye souls bent down to earth and void of everything heavenly.” – Persius.
[←611]
Should the reader desire to examine what is said on the Sonship of Christ, he will find
various views of it, and much information, in the following works: Roei Diss.de generatione
filii. Faber’s Horae Mosaicae, vol. ii. § 2. chap. ii. Bryant’s Philo Judaeus, p. 253. Dr. Adam
Clarke’s note on Luke 1.35. Ridgley’s Body of Divinity, pp. 73-77. Edit. Glas. 1770. And a very
able Tract on the subject, by the late Mr. Archibald M’Lean of Edinburgh.
[←612]
Life prefixed to his works.
[←613]
p. 12
[←614]
What today we call separation of church and state.
[←615]
Irenicum, or A weapon salve for the Church’s wounds, 1659.
[←616]
Philippic: a speech of violent denunciation.
[←617]
pp. 2-3.
[←618]
pp. 53, 54.
[←619]
Unreasonableness of Separation, Pref. p. 69.
[←620]
“Times are changing, and we are changing with them!”
[←621]
Robinson’s life of Claude, prefixed to the 3d Edit. of the Translation of his Essay, 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]
The Rye House Plot of 1683, was a plan to assassinate Charles II and his brother James,
Duke of York (heir to the throne), while journeying to a horse race in Newmarket. Because
of a major fire there, the races were cancelled, and the planned attack never took place.
[←646]
Pierce’s Vindication of the Dissenters, pp. 253, 258.
[←647]
Wodrow’s Hist. vol. ii, p. 388.
[←648]
And yet, in the 20th century, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was involved in an assassination attempt
on Adolf Hitler. 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’s De. Senectute. "O happy day, when I shall quit this impure and corrupt multitude,
and join myself to that divine company and council of souls who have quitted the earth
before me! There I shall find, not only those illustrious personages to whom I have spoken,
but also my Cato,” etc.
[←652]
Copy of the Doctor’s Will. — Had there been anything of importance in the Will, besides
what I have noted, I would have inserted it entire in the Appendix; but it is very short, and
contains nothing that would interest the reader.
[←653]
Nichol’s. Lit. Anec. vol. iv. p. 29.
[←654]
Wood’s Fasti, vol. 1. pp. 793, 794. The Libraries of many of the Dissenting ministers of this
period, were both extensive and valuable. Dr. Lazarus Seaman’s Library, the first that was
sold by auction, brought £700. The half of Dr. Goodwin’s Library, which was burnt, was
valued at £500 Dr. Iacomb’s sold for £1300. The collection of Dr. Bates was bought by Dr.
Williams, for £500, or £600, to lay the foundation of the valuable library now in Red Cross
Street. Dr. Evans’ Library, in the beginning of last century, contained 10,000 volumes. It is
probable Dr. Owen’s was not inferior to some of these.
[←655]
Translated by Dr. Gibbons.
[←656]
Watt’s Works, Parson’s Edit. vol. ii. p. 389.
[←657]
Memoirs, p. 33.
[←658]
Funeral Sermon.
[←659]
One of Gilbert’s Epitaphs. Works, p. 37
[←660]
Athen. Ox. vol. ii. p. 559.
[←661]
Clarkson’s Funeral Sermon.
[←662]
Pref. to Spirit. Mind.
[←663]
Clarkson’s Funeral Sermon.
[←664]
A Letter of advice from the Doctor to Mr. Asty, then in Norwich, is annexed to his Memoirs,
1721, p. 50. Another Letter of advice from him and Mr. George Griffiths, to the Church in
Tyler’s Street, Hitchin, in Hertfordshire, is inserted in the Non-conformist’s Mem. vol. i. p.
107. The Letters to the Churches in New England have already been noted.
[←665]
Wright’s Preface to his Edition of Owen on the Hebrews.
[←666]
"Say, bishops, of what avail is glitter to sacred subjects?"
[←667]
Preface to Divine Justice.
[←668]
Memoirs p. 34.
[←669]
Baxter’s Reply to Owen’s Twelve Arguments.
[←670]
Originally, “becoming morbid.”
[←671]
Arthur Young’s Oweniana, Preface.
[←672]
Hervey’s classification of the leading Non-conformists, and his character of them nearly
corresponds with what is given in the text. “Dr. Owen, with his correct judgment, and an
immense fund of learning. — Mr. Charnock, with his masculine style, and an inexhaustible
vein of thought. — Dr. Goodwin, with sentiments eminently evangelical, and a most happy
talent at opening, sifting, and displaying the hidden riches of Scripture. These I think are the
first three: — Then comes Mr. Howe, nervous and majestic; with all the powers of imagery
at his command. — Dr. Bates, fluent and polished; with a never-ceasing store of beautiful
similitudes. — Mr. Flavel, fervent and affectionate; with a masterly hand at probing the
conscience, and striking the passions. — Mr. Caryl, Dr. Manton, and Mr. Poole, with many
others, whose works will speak for them ten thousand times better than the tongue of
panegyric, or the pen of biography.” — Theron and Aspasio, vol. iii. p. 206. Edit. 1767. The
high opinion entertained of Baxter and Owen by the late Arthur Young, Esq. Secretary to the
Board of Agriculture, is evident from the selections from their works which he published
under the title of Oweniana and Baxteriana. That of Mr. Wilberforce is no less decided.
Baxter he classes “among the brightest ornaments of the Church of England.” Others, he
says, were men of great erudition, deep views of religion, and unquestionable piety; among
whom he mentions in particular Dr. Owen, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Flavel. The heavenly-
mindedness of Owen and his work on the Mortification of Sin, he strongly recommends. —
Wilberforce’s Practical View, pp. 242, 243.
[←673]
He conquers, who suffers – Persius.
[←674]
In 1715, Dean Prideaux, sarcastically proposed that Fellows of twenty years' standing, who
had not yet qualified for public service, be assigned to a charity house named “Drone Hall,”
paid for by the universities that put out such worthless fellows and students. – Oxford in the
18th Century, A.D. Godley, 1908.
[←675]
otium cum dignitate: leisure with digity.
[←676]
“The Family of Love” – an Antinomian/Perfectionist sect founded in Holland about 1540 by
Hendrik Niclaes. They spread to England about 1580. They taught that true believers live in
a natural state of Grace without Sin. Precursor to the Quakers.
[←677]
This is the first Canon in the Roman Catholic De Fore Competente. [Canon 1556]. “The First
Seat [the Pope] has no final judge [he is not to be judged or commanded by any other
human authority].”
[←678]
Though it is Milton, and “poetic,” it is prose and not rhyme; so I modernized his thee’s and
thou’s. I did the same with Luther’s prayer above, since he said it in German, and not in
middle-English. – WHG
[←679]
“Pompey does not admit a superior; Caesar has no equal.”
[←680]
John Endecott (1588-1665) — one of the founding Fathers of New England; the longest-
serving Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which became the State of
Massachusetts.
[←681]
Scurrility: foul-mouthed or obscene abuse.
[←682]
Andrew Kippis (1725-1795) was a leading Presbyterian minister, scholar and biographer. He
taught for many years at the Hoxton Academy, and later, at New College in Hackney. A
noted champion of Dissenters' rights and religious liberty, Kippis played a key role in the
campaign that led to the Dissenters' Relief Act of 1779, which exempted Nonconformist
ministers from subscription to the Church of England's Thirty-Nine Articles.