the benevolent doctrines of GENERAL REDEMPTION.* Of these consistent advocates of civil and religious liberty I shall, in the second volume of this work, give a more particular description: commencement of these observations, and shall in the second volume prove, yet more clearly, the easy terms of ingress and egress at the Court of Whitehall, which, under the new order of things, the republican preachers possessed: This circumstance would of itself be sufficient to account for Tillotson's appearance among the Divines in waiting. The recent subversion of Church and State had been so peculiarly the effect of the unhallowed exertions of Independent and Presbyterian divines, as to entitle the most noisy and violent of them to peculiar favour at the new Court, under the different forms which it assumed during twenty years of anarchy and despotism. Dr. Tillotson, however, was too good a man to be entitled, on either of these grounds, to an access to the Protector's presence; and the suspicion of Arminianism under which he laboured while only a junior member of the University of Cambridge, would, at least under the rule of old Oliver, have obtained for him no tokens of court-regard, had not more substantial reasons for his right of approach been in existence. What estimate will the reader, form of the accuracy of Mr. Orme when he is told, that this "divinity stripling" was then in the twenty-ninth year of his (age? But he will be still more amazed when he learns, that Tillotson might, from other motives than those of mere curiosity,“ presume to go into the presence-chamber of the Protector:" He was entitled at that period to such an indulgence, on account of his intended relationship to Richard Cromwell, who became his cousin by marriage! Few literary men, especially of the ecclesiastical order, will require the further information, that the celebrated Dr. Wilkins, afterwards elevated to the Bench of Bishops, married Oliver Cromwell's sister. She had been previously married to Dr. French; and to Miss French, her daughter, Mr. Tillotson is said to have been then betrothed; and, highly to his credit, about three years after the Restoration, they were happily united in the bands of holy matrimony.-It would be no unchristian act of retaliation were I, in this place, to employ Mr. Orme's axiom, which, he will perceive, is exceedingly flexible, yet just when properly applied, "Where the charac"ters of others are involved, the testimony of Independent deacons or pastors ought to be subject to those laws of evidence which regulate that of other

men,'

To a man like Tillotson, whose early conversion to Arminianism has always been ascribed to his perusal of CHILLINGWORTH'S famous book, these accredited scenes of fanatical impiety must have been very disgusting.

I know only of one instance of those who had, through conviction, embraced Arminianism during the Inter-regnum, and who refused at the Restoration to conform to the established regimen: This was TOBIAS CONYERS. Deserving, therefore, of distinct and special record is the remarkable fact, that though none of the objectionable parts of the Act of Uniformity had any reference to the disputes between Arminians and Calvinists; yet the latter and a few Baxterians, with the solitary exception just recited, were the only sufferers on that memorable occasion. That enactment is not even pretended to have been a trap artfully framed to ensnare the Nonconformists as Calvinists; but, after all my reading on this subject, I have not been able to resolve such an almost universal and voluntary infliction of SELF-PUNISHMENT on the high Predestinarian ministers, into any thing less than a marked act of Divine retribution. See pages 301 and 512. Some Calvinistic ministers, however, remained in the church, just in sufficient numbers to prove, that Conformity or Non-conformity had no direct reference to doctrinal matters.

JOHN GOODWIN may be reckoned by some persons a second Arminian exception. But he had no opportunity of evincing his choice of Conformity or Non-conformity, as he was excludsd prior to 1662, by the Act of Indemnity, from "holding any office, ecclesiastical, civil, or military." The very elegant, judicious, and candid "LIFE" of this great genius, which, "comprising an Account of his Opinions and Writings," has lately been presented to the public by my excellent friend, the Rev. Thomas JACKSON,

at present I content myself with the following notice from Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History:

"The public calamities, that flowed from these vehement and uncharitable disputes about religion, afflicted all wise and good

exhibits a fine example of the influence and progress of the benign doctrines of Arminianism upon the mind of a man who, at the commencement of the Civil Wars, was a rigid Calvinist. Similar blessed effects of the same doctrines on the minds of the Latitude-men are briefly narrated in a succeeding note; (p. 800,) and it will be shewn in Appendix M, that as soon as "the system of the famous EPISCOPIUS, was embraced by any man, "for the model of the doctrinal part of his religion,” (p. 795,) his former rigid ideas immediately began to relax on all subjects connected with civil and religious freedom. This gradual amelioration in opinion, accompanied with a correspondent liberality of feeling, is very perceptible in the case of Mr. Goodwin, who, in 1644, ably pleaded for as ample a toleration as that of which Milton was afterwards the advocate. (P. 781.) He was the first Englishman who, on his gradual departure from the ranks of Calvinism, exhibited to the world and defended the scriptural doctrine of the duty of the civil magistrate in matters of religion, on the same principles as those avowed above thirty years before, by Grotius, Uiteubogardt, and others of the Dutch Arminians. The ideas on this subject, which, in that age, nearly all the Calvinists in Europe maintained, were exceedingly dangerous to those civil governments that happened not to comport with them. The Puritans in England adopted those erroneous ideas in their envenomed warfare with King Charles the First, whom they regarded as "an unchristian monarch, and therefore to be resisted." But as soon as their friends had obtained the supremacy, and Presbyterianism became the established form of church-government, the allegiance, which had been previously refused to their lawful sovereign, was universally required, from every individual in the nation, to a Power that they denominated" truly christian, and, on that account, to be obeyed."Their conduct is well exposed in the following passage from one of Goodwin's earliest pamphlets on this controversy:

"Before he [the civil magistrate was truly christian, he had, say the Presbyterians generally, no power to punish, fine, imprison, banish any of his subjects for the exercise of their conscience towards God; but by virtue of that great mercy vouchsafed to him by God, in giving him fellowship with the saints in Jesus Christ, he is invested with a new power to persecute the saints, to make them pay dearly for having consciences, it may be, better than his own; at least, better than to comply outwardly with what they cannot inwardly digest and approve.-If this be the case between a Christian, and the civil magistrate under whom he lives, he hath small encouragement to pray for the conversion of such a magistrate to the truth, in case he were heterodox or Pagan; it being far better for him to live under such a magistracy, which hath no power to misuse him for his conscience-sake, than under that which hath [such a power], and is made to believe that it ought to use it accordingly."

On the whole, Goodwin's spirited resistance to the tyranny of the dominant Calvinists must be regarded as another notable instance of the controlling providence of God, by which he over-rules the weak or the wicked actions of his creatures, (which, whether they be heeded by us or not, are constantly occurring,) for the accomplishment of his own wise and beneficent designs. To Mr. Goodwin's character no stigma could attach, except that of being inclined to the new order of things, and having written in defence of the regicides,-two circumstances which, in those twenty years of misrule, were no disparagement to him among many of his cotemporaries. Orme says, "John Goodwin was one of the most extraordinary men of his age and "profession, whose opinions, talents, and contests, according to Owen, ren"dered him an object of no ordinary attention; and whose controversial powers were of the highest order. He had a great command of language, "trimmed and adorned with all manner of signal improvements." When,

66

men, and engaged several, who were not less eminent for their piety than for their moderation and wisdom, to seek after some method of uniting such of the contending parties as were capa

a

therefore, he defended a general toleration on broader principles than those of Dr. Owen, (p. 416,) he gained the attention of his compeers, many of whom, by the rude shocks in Church and State, had been loosed from the rigid notions which they had previously imbibed, and were thus prepared for the reception of the TRUTH on these subjects, under whatever form it might p present itself. Had any Episcopal divine written with such animation and irresistible vigour in defence of Toleration, he would have received the reproach which Mr. Orme has unjustly cast upon Dr. Jeremy Taylor, and which has been repelled with signal ability by Bishop Heber. (See page 806.) "The Liberty of Prophesying," says Owen's biographer, "deserves to be viewed, -either as the special pleading of a party counsellor, or the production of Jeremy Taylor, deprived of his benefice and the privileges of his profession, imploring relief." This is no valid objection to the force of Taylor's arguments; for the intrinsic properties of truth are not altered by the character or situation of the man who becomes their advocate. But this, though a modern expression of malevolence, was the embittered language almost universally employed by Goodwin's former friends, against such of the depressed Episcopal party as pleaded for the common rights of Toleration. Goodwin himself did not escape the virulent animadversions of his Calvinistic brethren, who could not brook TOLERANT COUNSEL when tendered by " man their equal, their guide, and acquaintance." They spoke of his liberality, when placed in contrast with their intolerance, as virtually the bitter reproaches of an enemy, which were beyond all human endurance. (Psalm Iv. 12.) Among all the instances of caustic ribaldry which were exhibited in the age of republican lampooning, there is none to be compared with that which John Goodwin was doomed on this account to endure. In self-defence, he constantly appealed to the soundness of his political creed as "a Commonwealth's-man;" and it has always been my opinion, that, how sincere soever. might be his own convictions of the lawfulness of the crime of the regicides, his subsequent excesses in defending that most cruel and obnoxious measure, had their origin-either in the politic desire of appearing to surpass in zeal the most violent of the republican partizans, and of thus evincing the purity of his reputed patriotism,-or in the honest warmth and frankness of the man, which prompted him to give instant utterance to his erroneous views of public justice. His conduct, perhaps, proceeded from a combination of both these causes; but, on either supposition, he proved himself to be a more upright and decided character than Dr. Owen, who is praised by Mr. Orme for having been "exceedingly cautious of committing himself by expressing an opinion," when he was "employed, the day after the King's death, to preach before the regicides." See the note in page 380.

But Arminianism obtained trophies for itself even among the Republicans; and its more benignant influence is well depicted in the difference observable between Owen and John Goodwin. Both of them derived their ideas about civil and religious freedom from the writings of the Dutch Remonstrants. Orme says, Dr. Owen wrote a Latin tract, about the year 1643, which, "besides "treating of the Priesthood of Christ, seems to have been intended as an "answer to the views of the Dutch Remonstrants on Liberty of Prophesying." He then presents his readers with the following quotation from Ŏwen's Defence of Cotton, which was published in 1658: I remember, about fifteen years ago, [which would be 1643,] 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 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 indul

ble of listening to the dictates of charity and reason, or at least of calming their animosities, and persuading them to mutual forbearance. These pacific doctors offered themselves as mediators between the more violent Episcopalians on the one hand, and the more rigid Presbyterians and Independents on the other; and hoped that, when their differences were accommodated, the

gence of liberty, he for restraint."-The writings of the Remonstrants, it is seen, were the sources from which both Owen and Goodwin derived that doctrine of religious liberty, which they pleaded in toleration of their sentiments, when their party was oppressed by the Presbyterians. But with this doctrine Goodwin almost simultaneously imbibed that of General Redemption, and the latter rendered the amplitude of the former much more distinct and apparent. Owen, on the contrary, borrowed only just as much of the Dutch doctrine of mutual toleration, as served a temporary purpose, and fenced it about with many restrictions, which might enable its advocate virtually to disclaim it at a convenient season. Such an occasion offered itself in 1654, when Owen was guilty of the very dereliction of his own principles, which his rash and ignorant biographer has produced (p. 808,) as a capital but false charge ageinst Dr. Jeremy Taylor; and the terms on which he was willing, in those days of expected triumph, to tolerate his Calvinistic brethren of the Presbyterian persuasion, were so narrow and illiberal as to excite strong animadversions from Richard Baxter, whose "account of that meeting," for a very plain reason, appears to Mr. Orme " long and tiresome." (Page 776.) Owen's views of toleration, which partook of the narrowness of his religious system, have been detailed in page 416. Let them be compared with the following sentiments on the same subject, which were published by Goodwin in 1644, and it will be instantly apparent how far ARMINIANISM transcends CALVINISM in candour and liberality? "The grand pillar of this co-ercive power in magistrates is this angry argument: What! would you have all religions, sects, aud schisms, tolerated in christian 'churches? Should Jews, Turks, and Papists be suffered in their religions, "what confusions must this needs breed both in Church and State!'-I answer, that they ought to be tolerated, only upon this supposition, that the professors of them be otherwise peaceable in the State, and every way subject to the laws and lawful power of the magistrate.-God's design, as well as ours, is unity amongst the saints in matters of faith and knowledge. But by what means hath be projected the obtaining of this desire? Mark, he doth not say, that he gave some Kings, and some Princes, and some Judges, and Justices of the Peace, some Pursuevants, and some Jailors, to bring men into the unity of the faith; but 'He gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers,' to bring this desir able end to pass. And if we would make more use of these instruments of God, of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, and less of those other, which are our own, for quenching those divisions that are amongst us; we might, in all likelihood, see our desires in this, many years sooner than by any other course we are like to do."

This eminent man was, among the Republicans, the great reviver and propagator of a purer species of Arminianism, than that which was then pro mulgated by the Remonstrants in Holland; and many of the Latitudinarians in both the English Universities, whose literary and religious existence was then only in a course of commencement, derived from his writings, seconded by those of the mild and orthodox of the Episcopal Arminians, all the salutary doctrines relative to civil and ecclesiastical liberty, for which their memories are deservedly blessed by their successors. This topic will receive additional illustration in the second volume. Enough, however, has been adduced in proof of the extensive spread of Arminianism during the Interregnum: The sectaries, who, in the sharp conflict for religious toleration, repaired to that pure source for appropriate arguments, returned generally from the search with more hallowed feelings and liberal opinions than they had previously possessed. See pages 689 and 798.

lesser, factions would fall of themselves. The contests that reigned between the former, turned partly on the forms of church government and public worship, and partly on certain religious tenets, more especially those that were debated between the Arminians and Calvinists. To lessen the breach that kept these two great communities at such a distance from each other, the arbitrators, already mentioned, endeavoured to draw them out of their narrow enclosures, to render their charity more extensive, and widen the paths of salvation, which bigotry and party-rage had been labouring to render inaccessible to many good christians.* This noble and truly evangelical method of ding procured to its authors the denomination of Latitudinarians. Their views, indeed, were generous and extensive. They were zealously attached to the forms of ecclesiastical government and worship that were established in the church of England, and they recommended episcopacy with all the strength and power of their elequence; but they did not go so far as to look upon it as of divine institution,† or absolutely and indispensably necessary to the consti

procee

* In the Introduction to this volume I have given some account of the scruples concerning church-government that were injected into my mind, when I was in a course of preparation for eutering into Holy Orders; and the pacific admissions made by several very eminent Episcopal Divines, at the commencement and towards the close of the Inter-regnum, produced in me, for a season, a considerable bias in favour of a modified species of Presbyterianism. Archbishop Usher, Bishops Taylor, Sanderson, Gauden, Stillingfleet, Dr. Hammond, and others who were able and most consistent defenders of Episcopacy, were ready, for the sake of peace, to concede a few peculiarities of Episcopal regimen, to the prejudices of the Puritans. If some of those excellent men seemed to alter in their views after the Restoration, sufficient causes for the change may be discovered in the new features which Dissent then assumed, and the towering pretensions which it preferred.

+Among the ignorant praters about Liberty, the utmost laxity of significa tion exists respecting the nature of Jus Divinum, and it varies according to the subjects to which the term is applied: In their vocabulary, it is an appropriate epithet when bestowed upon the rights of the people, for vox populi is with them vox Dei; but let any more sincere and consistent lovers of liberty than themselves speak about the equal propriety of its application to the rights of the Sovereign, and it is instantly stigmatized as a term synonimous with tyranny. The divine institution of Episcopacy was maintained by the Latitudinarians in the same sense as it was held by many of the elder Episcopal divines, and as it is expounded in the following extract from Bishop SANDERSON'S Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal Power:

"The truth is, all this ado about jus divinum is in the last result no more than a mere verbal nicety; that term being not always taken in one and the same latitude of signification.(1) Sometimes it importeth a divine precept, which is indeed the primary and most proper siguification, when it appeareth, by some clear, express, and peremptory command of God in his word, to be the will of God that the thing so commanded should be perpetually and universally observed. Of which sort, setting aside the articles of the Creed, and moral duties of the Law, which are not much pertinent to the present enquiry, there are, as I take it, very few things which can be said to be of divine positive right under the New Testament. The preaching of the gospel and administration of the Sacraments, are two; which when I have named, I think I have named all. (2) But there is a SECONDARY and more extended signification of that term, which is also of frequent use among divines. In which