Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Appendix · Section 1 · Letter 5
Mr. Baxter's Second Letter to Mr. Johnson.
Reverend Brother,
I Know not whether I am more glad of your Satisfaction, or sorrowful that you will needs supercede the Task which you undertook. I confess it is a Labour which I apprehend would be useful to me many ways; but a strong Conceit of the Impossibility of performing it, did slack my Desires: But now you tantalize me, expressing here a higher Confidence of the Feaseableness of your Work than before, (in your defying all the World on the contrary): So that I must again renew my suit to you, that you would perform that Work, and prove de facto an uninterrupted Succession. I profess, it is for my own Edification that I desire it; and if you suspect whether it be to cavil, or enter a Quarrel with, you mistake me. Such a Discovery would dispatch several Difficulties with me in several Controversies.
As for your Animadversions last sent, I shall reply to the substance of them in brief. 1. The First I conceive little worth the insisting on, because first you confess it is but a Motive to induce you to think there is weight in the Point. 2. Because if there were any thing in it, the contrary Judgments of all the Learned Divines of France, Belgia, upper Germany, Helvetia, Denmark, Sweeden, Scotland, Transilvania, Hungary, with a great part of the English, who are against the necessity of an uninterrupted Succession, is as strong a motive to an unprejudiced Man, as is the Judgment of the Bishops of England alone. But
2. It is a known Case past all doubt, that the English Bishops opposed the Papists in this Point, till of later Years; and to name you more, what need I, when you know I named you so many in my Book? To all which add, That even the late exasperated Episcopal Divines, whereof some have been suspected of halting, do yet confess the Truth of the Reformed Churches and Ministry that have no Bishops; as doth Dr. Fern, Dr. Stewart's, Answer to Fountain's Letter, Bishop Bromhall against Militerius, who yet would have the Pope to be principium Unitatis to all the Church. I do not think you can find one of twenty that wrote against the Papists before the late King's Reign, or the Treaty of the Spanish Match, but were all against the Papists in this Point of the necessity of uninterrupted Succession (if they medled with the Point).
Ad 2um. The Reason why you saw not a Formal Answer in my Words, I conceive was your Oversight, you took no notice of the Force of my Answer. You required this Proposition to be proved from Scripture [They that are thus and thus qualified may preach the Word] I told you it is contained in this which is in Scripture [Men thus and thus qualified shall be appointed to preach the Word.] Here you overlook the Strength of my Answer, which is in the Word [shall,] and you not only obscure the Emphasis, but change the Word, and put [may] for [shall.] Here is contained a Precept comprehensive both of the Preacher's Work, and the Ordainers conjunctly. Now all my Business was to shew you, that as in this there are more Precepts than one, so that secundum materiam subjectam they have not the same Degree of Obligation; and that though God do lay down together his Law both de re & de modo, of the Work, and the Order of entring on it, yet that the later is but for the former and subservient to it, and a more dispensable thing, and that when the Ordainers fail of their Duty (which is his own Precept included herein) the Person to be ordained remaineth nevertheless obliged by the other part: So that while Ordination may be had, this ties such to submit to it, and makes it necessary as God's Order; and then the whole Precept comprehensive obligeth: But when it cannot be had, or the Ordainer will not obey his part of the Precept, the other stands in force nevertheless to the other Party.
The Words [Men thus qualified shall be ordained] hath these two Precepts in it. The First in Order and Weight is [Men thus qualified shall preach the Word.] The Second subservient is, [They shall (ordinis gratia) be ordained hereto] He that is wilfully the first Divider of these Conjunct Precepts sinneth. Either the Man that will Preach without submitting to Ordination, when it may be had; or the Ordainers that will not Ordain the Orthodox, or otherwise well qualified. But seeing the Word [shall] in the foresaid Precept, doth create a double Necessity, but far unequal, [there shall be Preaching] and [Ergo, there shall be Ordaining] it followeth from the inequality, that when one ceaseth, the other doth not ergo cease; and so when Ordination cannot be had, the Proposition which you expected, remaineth alone, which before was conjunct with another. [Men thus qualified shall Preach:] This was the Summ of my Answer, which I do repeat verbosé nimium because you overlooked it the last time.
But you add, [I cannot yield that which you conceive we are both agreed in; viz. That when the Word hath described the Qualifications of the Minister, that there is no more to do, but to discern and judge who is the Man that hath these Qualifications: For though the Bishop should judge such a Man fit for the Ministry, as discerning the Qualifications which the Word requires in him, yet till he hath by Imposition of Hands, Fasting and Prayer, set him apart for that Work, he is yet no Minister to my Understanding, whatever he may be to yours.] To this I reply; 1. I take the Form of Ordination to lye in the Authoritative Appointment; and, God having described the Person by his Qualifications, I take the formal nature of this Appointment to lye only in [the determining Judgment] who shall be the Man: For [whether there shall be a Man appointed or not] God hath not left to Man's Judgment; nor yet [what manner of Man, for Qualifications, he shall be]: If, Ergo, the lawful Ordainers say, [We do by the Authority given us of God judge, i. e. sentence or determine, that consideratis, considerandis, this is the Man that is qualified, and so called of God to be the Pastor of this Church; and Ergo, require you in the Name of Christ, to accept him, and submit to him;] this Man is ordained my Judgment, yea, though this Determination be but in Writing. So if it be directed to the Minister himself: (which goes first) [we do by the Authority given us of God, Judge thee called to the Office of the Ministry; and Ergo, require thee to undertake it.] By called I mean ex parte Dei, by Qualification, Consent, Opportunity, &c. which go before Ordaining.
Now what do you yet want ad esse Ministri? …ou mention but two things, 1. Imposition of Hands. 2. Fasting and Prayer: (For setting a part is done by the former Authoritative Determination) But 1. Imposition you anon deny to be so necessary, in disclaiming your last Argument; which you seem here to forget. 2. Fasting and Prayer is, no doubt a mean Accident, or Duty fitly conjoined, but not of the Essence of Ordination I think few Men living will say, that if the Lawful Ordainer do all the rest of the Work besides Prayer, that it is no Ordination; Prayer is one thing (requisite ad bene esse) and Ordination another. And for Fasting, I could not learn that those Bishops that I knew did always observe it; but when the Ordination was before dinner time (as it usually was) and the Bishop went presently from Ordination to his Feast; that was not the Fasting, I think, which you mean. But how are you satisfied that we may derive our Authority immediately from the Law, if there were no Succession? and yet think him no Minister that hath the determinating Sentence of the Ordainer's Appointing him to the Work, for want of Imposition of Hands, Prayer and Fasting.
Ad 3um. I marvel, that on so very slight Grounds, you think that [nothing is more evident, than that the case of extream Necessity is their case] who invade the Ministry among us now! I told you that Nemini debitur Commodum ex propriâ culpa (as the Civil Law saith) I distinguished between moral Impossibility vicious and culpable, and inculpable; and between necessitating to Sin, and necessitating to, or constituting of Duty; and I told you, that the impossibility that lay on them of right entering was vicious, or through their own Sin; and God doth not cause Men to Sin. I told you also, that this erring Conscience might necessitate them to sin, that is, ensuare them, that hey shall sin whether they do or not do; but it can never warrant them in obeying it. This was the Sense of my Speech, though not the Words. To explain which, I desire you to observe, that bonum est ex causis integris, at least quoad Species, if not quoad Gradus. So that God requireth to a virtuous Action which shall be properly and plenarily Moral, i. e. voluntary, 1. That it be made due by his own Precept or Law. 2. That it be apprehended such by the Intellect, and so by the will elected, and elicite as such: So that where Conscience takes that to be Duty which is none, it hath but Officium appar…us, & non verum; it catcheth a Shadow, apprehending a Duty which is no Duty; so there may be interpretative a kind of formal Reason of Obedience in the Will (the Guided Faculty) in that it did will that which was presented to it as due, but there wants the Matter and the Form of Obedience quoad hominem, who is intelligent also: yea, here you must distinguish between Ignorance culpable, (and superable) and inculpable: For when the Ignorance is culpable, it cannot be said that the guilty Will doth properly obedire, because it was a cause of its own mis-leading by the intellect: And in our Case, that Ignorance is always culpable. I do wonder, Ergo, that you should say, (and lay all on that Mistake) that [an erroneous Conscience binds as strongly as a found] for the Obligation of Conscience is subordinate to God's Preceptive Obligation. God makes Duty, and Conscience doth but apprehend Duty: So that an erring Conscience cannot make Duty entirely and materially: We must not make a God of an erring Conscience, much less can it make that no Sin, which God hath made Sin; yea, make that Duty, which God made Sin. God's Precepts lye thus: [1. Thou shalt not run before thou art sent] This is to the whole Man: and no Error of Mans can repeal it. Then [2. The Will must follow the right guiding Intellect.] This is natural, and excuseth not the following of an erring Judgment. Then [3. That the Will follow the practical Intellect whether right or wrong] that is no Precept, but the Nature of the Soul in its acting, because that Will is potententia ceca, non nata, ad intelligendum, sed ad volendum vel nolendum intellectum: So that it is a most intollerable thing to grant that Man's Error can make Duty no Duty, or Sin no Sin. If Man must will bonum apprehensum, he may necessitate himself to sin in his choice, by misapprehending; because then, though Bonum be still Bonum, yet it is apprehensum sub Ratione mali, & è contra, and so one of the two Necessaries to right Willing is wanting; but apprehending malum to be bonum doth not make it so; and Ergo, then the greater Necessary is wanting to the erring Conscience, viz. God's Constitution: So that whether you say as Durandus, that Conscientia errans Ligat at non obligat, or whether you say, as others, that ligare and obligare are all one; yet still the case is plain, that [an erring Conscience may entangle us in Sin, whether we obey or not obey it; but it cannot free us from Sin or from Duty, except where the case is such that God's Law hath made one and the same thing to be sin or no sin, according to Mens Knowledge or Ignorance; which never falls out but when the Ignorance is inculpable, which is never in our Case] Even while the Person erreth, he lyeth under a double Obligation: 1. To do the Duty, or avoid the Sin. 2. To judge rightly of Sin and Duty, and apprehend them as they are; and so to lay down his Error: So that all your Words import but this; [An erring Man cannot choose but err; or, cannot overcome it:] But not [he is, ergo, innocent:] For it is his own Fault that brought him to it, and continueth him in it. He that is accustomed to do evil, is not innocent, because he can no more learn to do well, than a Blackamore can change his Skin, &c.
2. This Answer of yours seems again to me, to be inconsistent with your professed Conviction. For if you do indeed think 1. That in case of necessity the Succession is not necessary. 2. And that nothing is more evident than that these Men have such Necessity:] then you must think that these Men are lawful Ministers; which I know you do not. Where the Flaw is, and what Link of this Chain you will break, I cannot tell.
3. And when you say, that (the Papists may say as easily to us, as we to the Sectaries, that it is our Error, &c. (and so the Episcopal Party) that we will not take Orders from them.] I reply, They may say it as easily, but if as truly, they conclude us under Guilt, and carry the Cause. Twenty Parties may say they are all in the right, doth it follow that they are all so, because they make the same Pretonce to it? Many Parties may Plead one Medium, one Scripture, for contrary Opinions: Are they, Ergo, alike sound and justifiable? Thus the Scepticks and Libertines use to say, [You say, you are in the right, and Papists and Anabaptists say, they are in the right: Ergo, (What then? Why) they may be in the right, or at least, should have Liberty as well as you.] But it is not he that saith he is in the right, but he that is so indeed, that should be countenanced by the Magistrate: So it is not he that hath the same Pretence, but the justifiable Cause that must carry it: Else what are Judges for, if each Man have right that pretends to it? If our erroneous Conciences make us grope in the Dark, and suppose the Papists have nailed up the Door, when they have not, then the Sin lyeth on us. But if indeed the Papists, do by wicked Oaths, and Engagements to Papal Tyranny, and to false Doctrines, supernumerary Articles of Faith, and wicked Practices, shut up the Door of Ordination, that no Man can lawfully enter at it, among them, then is the Sin theirs, and God will judge them for the Divisions, Distractions, Confusions, Corruptions, and Desolations, which they have brought upon the Churches of Christ.
Ad. 4um. I need say nothing.
Sir, let me conclude as I begun, with a request that you would prove the uninterrupted Succession, for the Information of
Your Brother, Rich. Baxter. Nov. 18. 1653.
To my Reverend Brother, Mr. Johnson, Preacher of the Gospel at Womborne, This.