CHAP. II.
Owen’s connexion with the Presbyterian body — its
state at that time — Baxter’s account of it — its Intolerance — Owen publishes his Duty of Pastors and People’s
— 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 at which it ever arrived in
England. Whether Presbyterianism was the form of government which prevailed in
the primitive church, it is not our object, at present, to ascertain; but, that
Calvin was the first, after the reformation, who brought it into notice, and
reduced it to practice, is, we believe, generally admitted. Whether it was
suggested to him by the Civil Government of Geneva, or entirely by the New
Testament, will be credited, according as men are the abettors or opponents of
his system. Be this as it may, in the school of Geneva originated the
Presbyterianism of Britain. The English exiles, driven from their native
country, by the oppressions of popery and prelacy, to that city of liberty,
were alienated from the system in which most of them had been educated, as well
by the conduct of its supporters, as by their conviction of its contrariety to
the word of God. They were thus prepared to view, with a favourable eye, a form
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. 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; while the intercourse between England and those countries, greatly
increased by the tyrannical measures of government, advanced the progress of
its career in that quarter.
[[@Page:29]] The body of
the Puritans were never entirely of the same mind on the subject of church
government. Not a few of them were, without doubt, rigid Presbyterians; but many
of them would have gladly 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 Scots’ army was brought into
England, and when a uniformity of faith and worship in the three kingdoms began
to be enforced. As, for a considerable time, it appeared likely to gain the
ascendancy, most of those who fell off from Episcopacy, from dissatisfaction
with its forms, united themselves with it, though many of them were not
disposed to admit all its pretensions. [1]
Owen, as 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, 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, by me clearly understood; 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 the one party or the other; but
were such as occurred to mine 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, not knowing but that my principles were suited to their judgment
and profession; having looked very little farther into those affairs, than I
was led by an opposition to Episcopacy and ceremonies. [2]
Presbyterianism was not
established in England ‘by way of probation,’ [3]
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 that Owen
was ever a member of a presbytery. This circumstance, together with his
sentiments as stated in the above extract, shews that his connexion with that
body was more nominal [[@Page:30]] than
real. To give a correct view of its religious character about this time is not
an easy task. The partiality of its friends has 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 distinguished for their learning; and not a few who had
suffered much in the cause of God. In a body which contained 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 could not have borne a close investigation. [4]
The testimony of Baxter, whose opportunities of judging wero abundant, and
whose partiality to the Presbyterians secures hint 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 they that went through the work of the ministry, in
diligent, serious preaching to the people, and edifying men’ souls, and keeping
up religion in the land.’ [5]
— But I disliked the course of some of the more rigid of them, that 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, that 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 be backed with confiscation or imprisonment, is no
fitter to be a member of a Christian church, than a corpse is 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’ sword enforce 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.
Till [[@Page:31]] magistrates keep the sword themselves, and
learn to deny it to every angry clergyman that would do his own work by it, and
leave them to their own weapons, — the word and spiritual 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 other’ were too
much for it; and thought by votes and number to do that which love and
reason should have done. [6]
The worst feature
certainly of Presbytery, about this time, that which excited the greatest
attention, and which ultimately ruined its influence, 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; which,
therefore, the civil authorities ought to exert their utmost energy to put
down. [7]
Their most distinguished writers advocated the rights of persecution, and
endeavoured to reason, or rail 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 notice 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,’ discovers how determined a foe he was, to what he calls a ‘monstrous
imagination.’ [8]
The latter, wrote a quarto volume of four hundred pages against pretended
liberty of conscience.’!! 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 groupes of
dissenters from presbytery were represented as making their [[@Page:32]] devoutest prostrations. That I do not caricature the persons of
whom I am speaking, let the following specimen shew.
A Toleration is the grand
design of the devil — his master-piece, and chief engine he works by at this
time, to uphold his tottering kingdom. It is the most compendious, ready, sure
w ay to destroy all religion, lay all waste, and bring iu 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 hath 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, be 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
other ways; — All the devils in hell, and their instruments, being at work to
promote a toleration. [9]
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 discovered 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 in the
churches. [10] When
they found the Commons would not support their violent and unreasonable [[@Page:33]] demands to suppress all other sects, they brought
forward the Scots’ parliament to demand that their advices should be complied
with, and to publish a declaration against toleration. [11]
The whole body of the London ministers addressed a letter to the Assembly, in
which they most solemnly declare how much they ‘detest and abhor 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 of religion.’ [12]
The provincial assembly of London, the ministers of Warwickshire and
Lancashire, published declarations or addresses to the same purport. [13]
Enough on so unpleasant a
subject. Whatever differences existed in this party about 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.
Their 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. 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 [[@Page:34]] Presbytery, which, after all, the parliament would
not admit in its full extent.” [14]
It required, indeed,
considerable enlargement of mind, to examine impartially the causes of the
confusion of practice and conflict of opinion, which were then operating on the
country. Few were capable of looking through the tempest which was then
howling, to a period of peace which would certainly follow; when the novelty of
liberty should subside into the enjoyment of its sweets; and when the
ebullitions of party should give place to ‘quietness and assurance for ever.’
Milton took the true view of the state of the country, when he exclaimed, in all the felicity of the
poet and the fervour of the patriot, Methinks I see a noble and puissant nation
rousing herself, like a strong man after sleep, and 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 noise
of timorous and flocking birds, with those also that love the twilight, flutter
about, amazed at what she means, and in their envious gabble would
prognosticate a year of sects and schisms.’ [15]
We have no reason to
think that Owen ever approved of the sentiments and spirit of the body with
which he was, to appearance, for a time connected. It seems rather probable
that its violent temper tended to shake any attachment he ever had to it. The
moderation of his views, even while a Presbyterian, appeared in the next
production of his pen, and which 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,’ &c. 4to, pp. 56,
1644. [16]
Though it has the date of 1644, it was published in 1643. It is dedicated to
his ‘Truly noble and ever honoured friend, Sir Edward Scot of Scots [[@Page:35]]
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 thanks him for many favours, and especially
for the free ‘proffer of an ecclesiastical preferment, then vacant, and in his
donation;’ but which 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 that he had been some time in Sir Edward’s
family; and as it does credit to the worthy Knight, and shews something of the
troubled state of the country, it is worth quiffing. ‘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.’
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. ‘Some,’ says he, ‘would
have all Christians to be almost ministers, others none but ministers to 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
the ruling of the congregation, the other abridging them of the performance of
spiritual duties, for the building of their own souls. As though there were no habitable
earth between the valley, I had almost said, the pit of democratical confusion,
and the precipitous rock of hierarchical tyranny.’ [17]
His design, therefore, is to show how ‘The sacred calling may retain its
ancient dignity, though the people of God be not deprived of their Christian
liberty.’ [18]
In prosecuting this
discussion he declares himself to be of ‘the belief of that form of church
government, which is [[@Page:36]] commonly
called Presbyterial, in opposition to Prelatical on the one side, and that which
is commonly 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, ‘Upon a review of what I had there asserted, I found
that my principles were more suited to what is the judgment and practice of the
Congregational men, than those of the Presbyterian. Only, whereas I had not
received any farther clear information in these ways of the worship of God,
which since I have been engaged in, I professed myself of the Presbyterian
judgment, in opposition to democratical confusion; and, indeed, so I do still,
and so do all the Congregational men in England that I am acquainted with. So that when I compare what I then wrote
with my present judgment, I am scarce able to find the least difference between
the one and the other; only a misapplication of names and things by me, gives
countenance to this charge.’ [19]
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; so that it is only towards the end of it, that he treats of their duty
now, in extraordinary and ordinary circumstances. Without seeming to advocate lay
preaching, he argues from various considerations, that ‘truth revealed to
any carries along with it an immoveable persuasion of conscience, that it ought
to be published and spoken to others.’ From Acts viii. 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 kingdom.’ In
extraordinary or peculiar circumstances, therefore, he [[@Page:37]] 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. 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, of
their own accord to assemble together, to consider one another, to provoke unto
love and to good works, to stir up the gifts that are in them, yielding and
receiving mutual consolation by the fruits of their most holy faith.’ He
endeavours to shew 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 every where discovers 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, which have so frequently been discovered by men in
office, and which 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 mentions twice a Latin tract, ‘De sacerdotio Christi contra
Armin. Socin. et Papistas.’ Besides treating of 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 friends, and was, he tells us, ‘nondum edito,’
when he published his Duties of Pastor and People. Nor does it appear to have
been ever published; as before this could take place, his niind underwent an
important change on the subject of religious liberty. As every thing 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 [[@Page:38]] established (Presbytery); having, at that time, made
no farther 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 pleading for
an indulgence of liberty, he for restraint. Whether that learned and worthy
person be of the same mind that then he was, I know not directly. My change I
here 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 shall
only say, it was at least twelve years before the Petition and Advice, [20]
wherein the Parliament of the three nations is come up to my judgment.’ [21]
This passage exhibits the
openness and candour of Owen in a very interesting light; and also shews that
his changes did not follow, but precede 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. 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.
Previously to Owen’s introduction
to the parish of Fordham, the parish itself, and the surrounding country, had
been exceedingly neglected. Immediately, therefore, on 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’ 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 [[@Page:39]]
has often been blessed to the souls of men.
To enable him more effectually to prosecute this plan, in the end of the year
1645, he published, “ The Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, unfolded in two
short Catechisms; wherein those principles of religion are explained, the
knowledge whereof is required by the late ordinance of Parliament, before any
be admitted to the Lord’ Supper: 12mo. pp. 60. [22]
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,’ discovers the deep anxiety he felt for their
spiritual welfare, and notices some of the means he bad employed to promote it.
‘My heart’s desire and request unto God for you is, that ye may be saved: I say
the truth in Christ also, I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the
Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness, and continual sorrow in my heart, for
them amongst you, who as yet walk disorderly. and not as beseemeth the gospel,
little labouring to acquaint themselves with the mystery of godliness. You
know, brethren, how I have been amongst you, and in what manner, for these few
years past; and how I have kept back nothing that was profitable unto you; but
have shewed 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 hath been by me performed, with what issue and success by you
received, God, the righteous Judge, will one day declare. In the mean time, the
desire of my heart is, to be servant to the least of you in the work of the
Lord; and that in any way, which I can conceive profitable unto you, either in
your persons or your families.’ This language shews bow much he was in earnest
about his work, and discovers the same spiritual and benevolent mind, which he
cultivated and maintained to the end of his course.
Both Catechisms are
strictly of a doctrinal nature: the [[@Page:40]] omission of moral duties he
explains, by declaring his intention to publish, in a short time, an Exposition
of the Lord’ 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 xvi. 9., and is entitled, ‘A vision of
unchangeable free mercy, in sending the means of grace to undeserving sinners.’
[23]
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, ‘every one 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, deserves to be here introduced. ‘Amplissimo
Senatui, &c. &c. 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 — [[@Page:41]] 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 by their command published,’
&c.
It must be acknowledged
that this is not ordinary praise. But when we consider the conduct of the long
Parliament till 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 the admissions even of its enemies in its favour; 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 bad
filled all Europe with the renown of its actions.’ 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 approbation, 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; and that 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 he still remained in
the Presbyterian body; it could scarcely be said that he was of it. The
discourse itself contains his decided disapprobation of the views and spirit of
many in that profession. ‘They are,’ he says, ‘disturbed in their optics, or
having. got false glasses, all things are represented to them in dubious
colours. Which way soever [[@Page:42]] 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, not of the worst,
and made them think, that all before was nothing, in comparison of the present
confusion.’ Referring to the same thing in the Essay, he says: ‘Once more,
conformity is grown the touchstone amongst the greatest part of men, however
otherwise of different persuasions. Dissent is the only crime, and where that
is all that is culpable, it shall be made all that is so.’
About this time it
appears that he had much discussion with the 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 Church Government, and publish them with his
sermon. The substance of it had a good while before been circulated in
manuscript; and the great object of it is to try to unite both parties — the
Presbyterian and Independent; or, at least, to moderate their warmth. While he
professes to belong to, or hold some of the principles of the former, he, at
the same time, explicitly d eclares, ‘that he knew no church government in the
world, already established, of the truth and necessity of which he was in all
particulars convinced.’ 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 intimates also his
conviction that ‘all national disputes about Church 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 uniformity, and the necessity and
importance of toleration. He protests against giving men odious appellations,
on account of their religious sentiments; and 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 [[@Page:43]]
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, — the
only way — that for want of which, errors, heresies, 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 kingdom, communion,
heaven, cannot hold us.’ He had given great offence by refusing, it appears, to
subscribe petitions to Parliament about Church Government, for which he assigns
very satisfactory reasons: but which show that he was far alienated from the
religious party then in power.
On the subject of
toleration he had made great advances, though he had not yet arrived at the
maturity of his sentiments on this subject. ‘Toleration,’ he says, ‘is the alms
of authority, yet men who beg for it think so much at least their due. I never
knew one contend earnestly for a toleration of dissenters who was not one
himself; nor any for their suppression, who were not themselves of the
persuasion which prevaileth.’ He does not, however, maintain the necessity of a
universal toleration; and yet when his limitations come to be examined, and the
means be would employ in repressing error, and supporting truth, attended to,
his views arc, on the whole, highly enlightened and liberal. 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,’ says he, ‘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 what head of religion soever it be, and
blasphemy very different. — “To spread such errors will be destructive to souls:”
so are many things which yet are not punishable with death; let him that 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’ heads
is no proper remedy for it. If state physicians think otherwise, I say no more,
but that I am not of the college.’
[[@Page:44]] 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; by advocating which he was destined
to acquire to himself a distinguished reputation, and to confer on his country
a most invaluable boon. He was already in the career of discovery advanced
considerably beyond most men of his time. — 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 required not
the support of man’s puny arm, or the vengeance of his wrath, he fearlessly
committed it to him who has engaged to preserve it, and who hath said, ‘To me
belongeth vengeance, I will repay.’
On a report that the
sequestered incumbent of Fordham was dead, the patron presented another to the
living, and dispossessed Owen. From this it would appear that in such cases,
the parliamentary presentations did not permanently interfere with the rights
of the patron; and that a person presented in the room of one 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; for which, his mind had been for some time in a state of
preparation.
Every change of religious
sentiment is important to the person who makes it, and ought to be gone into
with cautious 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 to truth, or of sinful fear 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 for his convictions he
must he accountable at last. The attempt to smother them is always improper;
and when successful, must injure the religious feelings of their subject. To
allow hopes or fears of a worldly nature to [[@Page:45]] overcome our
persuasion of what the word of God requires, is to forget the important
intimation of our Lord, — that, if any thing is loved more than Himself, it is
impossible to be his disciple. By such conduct the tribulations of the kingdom
may often be avoided, but the consolations and rewards of it will also be lost.
‘If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant
be; If any man serve me, him will my Father honour.’
[1] Baxter’s own Life, i. p. 97. et passim.
[2] Review of the true nature of Schism.
[6] Baxter’s own Life, part ii. pp. 142-145.
[7] ‘Crosby’ History of the Baptists, i. pp. 176,
177.
[15] Areopagitica, Works, p. 393. Ed. 1697.
[20] 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment