Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Part 2 · Section 2
May 14th, 1655. An Answer to the foregoing Questions, sent to Sir R. Clare.
Ad Quest. 1m. EIther that Conscience owneth the right Religion and Discipline only, or the right with some tolerable accidental Errours, or a wrong Religion and Discipline in the Substance. The first the Magistrate must not only tolerate, but promote. The second he must tolerate rather than do worse by suppressing it. The third he must suppress by all lawful means, and tolerate when he cannot help it, without a greater Evil. I suppose no Judicious Man will expect an exact Solution of so Comprehensive a Question in few words: And I find not that a large Discussion is now expected from me: There are four or five Sheets of my Manuscripts in some hands abroad on this Point, which may do more towards a satisfactory Solution, than these few words.
Ad 2m. Either the tender Conscience is in the right, or in the wrong: If in the wrong, the Magistrates Liberty will not make a Sin to be no Sin; but the Party is bound by God to rectifie his Judgment, and thereby his Practice. If in the right, it is a strange Question, Whether a Man may obey God, that hath the Magistrates leave, till he be enforced by Mens violence? Doth any doubt of it?
Ad 3m. Matter of Government depending only on Fact, is a Contradiction: Seeing Government consisteth in a Right, and the Exercise of it. I am not able therefore to understand this Question. Yet, if this may afford any help toward the Solution, I affirm, That the general and perpetual practice of the Church from Age to Age, of a thing not forbidden by the Word of God, will warrant our imitation. I say [of a thing not forbidden] because it hath been the general and perpetual practice of the Church, to Sin, by vain Thoughts, Words, imperfect Duties, &c. wherein our imitation is not warrantable. The general and perpetual practice includeth the Apostles and that Age. But what is meant by [Evidencing the Right of a thing that dependeth only of Fact] or by [Evidencing the Truth and Certainty of a Fact by general and perpetual practice] (which is to prove idem per idem), I will not presume that I understand.
Ad 4m. I know not what Bishops you mean. A Congregational Bishop overseeing the People is undoubtedly lawful: so is a Congregational Bishop, being President of a Presbytery which is over that Congregation. Where many Congregational Officers are associated, I do not think that a President for a time, or during his fitness, standing and fixed, is unlawful. The like I may say of a President of many of those Associations again associated, as in a Province or Diocess: And I believe it were a very easie work for wise, godly, moderate men to agree about his Power: And I would not seem so censorious as to proclaim that England wanteth such, further than the actual want of such Agreement, or just endeavours thereto, doth proclaim it. I am satisfied also, that the Apostles themselves have de jure Successors in all that part of their work which is to be perpetuated, or continued till now; though not in their extraordinary Endowments and Priviledges. But if the sence of your Question be, Whether one Man may be the standing chief Governour of many particular Churches with their Officers, having either sole power of Ordination and Jurisdiction (as some would have) or a Negative Voice in both (as others) it would seem great arrogancy in me to be the confident Determiner of such a Question, which so wise, learned, godly sober Men, have said so much of on both sides already.
Ad 5m. 1. He that knows how short Church History is in these Matters for the first Age after the Apostles, at least, and hath read impartially what Gersom, Bucerus, Parker, Blondellus, Salmasius, Altare Damascen, have said on one side; and Saravia, Downham, Dr. Hammond, &c. on the other; would sure never expect that I should presume to pass any confident Sentence in the Point: And it's like he would be somewhat moderate himself.
2. I say as before, I know not what you mean by Bishops: I am confident that the Church was not of many Hundred years after Christ governed as ours was lately in England, by a Diocesan Bishop and a Chancellor, excluding almost all the Presbyters.
3. Why do you say [Since the Apostles days,] when you before spoke of the [General and perpetual practice of the Church]?
Ad 6m. The word [National Church] admits of divers sences. As it was usually understood in England, I think there was none for divers hundred years after Christ, either governed by Bishops or without them. They that will look after the most encouraging Presidents, must look higher than National Churches.
Ad 7m. The Question seems not to mean any particular truly-schismatical Party of Ministers, but the generality, that live not under the Bishops: and so I answer negatively, waiting for the Accusers proof.
Ad 8m. 1. I know not what the Oath of Canonical Obedience is: therefore cannot give a full Answer. I know multitudes of Ministers ordained by Bishops, that never took any such Oath.
2. The Powers that violently took down the Bishops, were the Secular Powers: None else could use violence. And it were a strange Oath for a Man to swear that he would never obey the Secular Powers if they took down the Bishops, when the Holy Ghost would have us obey Heathen Persecutors.
3. If it were so great a Sin to obey those Powers, I conceive it must be so to the Laity as well as the Ministry: And I knew but few of the Episcopal Gentry or others called to it, that did refuse to take the Engagement to be true and faithful to that Power, when the Presbyters here accused durst not take it.
4. Most Presbyters that I know do perform all Ecclesiastical Matters upon supposition of a Divine Direction, and not upon the Command of Humane Powers.
Ad 9m. The Ordination of meer Presbyters is not null, and the Presbyters so ordained now in England are true Presbyters, as I am ready to maintain. But wait for the Accuser's proof of the nullity.
Ad 10m. 1. This calls me to decide the Controversie about the late Wars, which I find not either necessary or convenient for me to undertake.
2. The like I must say of deciding the Legality of Inductions and Admissions.
3. If a worthy Man be cast out, had you rather that God's Worship were neglected, and the People perished for lack of Teaching, then any other Man should be set over them, though one that had no hand in casting him out? Must the People needs have him or none as long as he lives? Was it so when Bishops were cast out heretofore by Emperours or Councils? I think may take the Guidance of a destitute People, so I hinder not a worthy Man from recovering his Right.
4. I never desired that any should be Excluded but the Unworthy,(the Insufficient, or Scandalous, or grosly Negligent): And I know but too few of the Ejected that are not such: And this Question doth modestly pass over their Case; or else I should have said somewhat more to the Matter.
Ad 11m. 1. It is a necessary Christian Duty to see that we do not the least Evil for our own safety: And all God's Ordinances must be maintained as far as we can: But as I before disclaimed the Arrogance of determining the Controversie about our Diocesan Episcopacy, so I think not every Legal Right of the Church (which it hath by Man's Law), nor every thing in our Liturgy, to be worthy so stiff a maintenance, as to the loss of Life; nor the loss of Peace: Nor did the late King think so, who would have let go so much. But I think that they that did this [carnally for Self-interest and Ends] did grievously sin, whether the thing it self were good or bad: especially if they went against their Consciences.
2. I think there is no unlawful Prayers or Service now offered to God in the Church ordinarily, where I have had opportunity to know it. And I think we pray for the same things, in the main, as we were wont to do; and offer God the same Service: And that Mr. Ball and others against the Separatists, have sufficiently proved, that it is no part of the Worship, but an Accident of it-self indifferent, that I use These Words, or Those, a Book or no Book, a Form premeditated, or not. And no Separatist hath yet well answered them.
Ad 12m. Such as you described you can hardly know, and therefore not knowingly scruple their Communion; for a Man's ends and knowledge are out of your sight: You can hardly tell who did this [against Knowledge and Conscience, carnally, for Self interest]. But if you mean it of your ordinary Ministers and Congregations, I am past doubt that you are Schismatical, if not worse, you avoid the Assemblies, and Ordinances mentioned, upon such Accusations and Suppositions: And I shall much easier prove this, than you will make good your Separation.
Ad 13m. Permitting you to suppose [Orthodox] and [Episcoparian] to be the same, at present; you may easily know that the Episcopal are not all of a Mind, but differ, I think, much more among themselves, than the moderate Episcopal and Presbyterians differ: some maintaining that the Ordination of meer Presbyters is not null, with divers the like things; which the novel sort doth disclaim. The old Episcopal Protestant may not only take a Cure of Souls now, without any Contradiction to his Principles, but may comfortably Associate with the peaceable Ministry of the Land, and may not conscionably avoid it. The Novel sort before mentioned, ought to rectifie their mistakes, and so to take up their duty; but as they are, I see not how they can do it in consistency with their Principles, unless under the Jurisdiction of a Bishop.
Ad 14m. For the Point of the legality of the Liturgy, you call me to determine Cases in Law, which I find my self unfit for. And for the Directory, its Nature is (according to its Name) not to impose Words or Matter, nor bind by human Authority, but to direct Men how to understand God's Word concerning the Ordering of his Worship. Now either it directeth us right or wrong: If wrong, we must not follow such Directions: If right, it's no unlawful disturbance of the Churches Peace to obey God's Word upon their Direction: Circumstances, wherein some place most of their Government, they very little meddle with. And indeed I know but few that do much in the order of Worship eo Nomine because it is so in the Directory; but because they think it most agreeable to God's Word; or most tending to Concord, as things now stand. Would you have us avoid any Scripture or orderly Course, meerly because it is expressed in the Directory? And think you those are Ways of Peace?
Ad 15m. I think (on the Credit of others) that the Jewish Church had a Liturgy; I am sure they had Forms of Praises and Prayer in some Cases. I know Christ taught his Disciples the Lord's Prayer, I will not determine whether as a Directory for Matter and Order, or whether as a Form of Words to be used, or when, or how oft used: I conjecture you regard the Judgment of Grotius, who saith in Matt. 6. 9. [foreign: In hunc Sensum: Non enim praecipit Christus verba recitari, quod nec legimus Apostolos fecisse, quanquam id quoque fieri cum fructu potest sed materiam precum hinc promere.] i.e. Pray thus; that is, to this Sense: For Christ doth not command the saying of the Words, nor do we read that the Apostles did it, though that also may profitably be done; but hence to fetch the Matter of Prayer.] You know the Directory adviseth the use of the Words: And how it was that Iohn taught his Disciples to pray, I cannot tell; nor will herein pretend my self wiser than I am. The Example of the Primitive Church is never the more imitable for the Cessation of Persecution; and its Example before is most to be regarded, that being purest that is next the Fountain. We are sure that the Church long used extemporate Prayers, and its probable betimes, some Forms withal. I think they are strangely Dark and addicted to Extreams, that think either that no Forms are lawful, or that only prescribed or premiditated Forms are lawful. And if you will condemn all publick extemporate Prayers, you will err as grosly as they that will have no other.
Ad 16m. I know no necessity of any Godfather or Godmother, beside the Parents, unless you will call those so, that in case of their necessary Absence are their Delegates. Nor do I know that ordinarily among us any Dictates or Prayers are used that a sober Christian hath the least reason to scruple Communion in. Will you have a Pastor that shall not speak in the Name of the People to God? or will you call his Prayers [his own] which he puts up by Virtue of his Office, according to God's Word?
Ad 17m. I think they cannot without Sacriledge make such Alienation; except where God's Consent can be proved. For Example; if the Ministers of the Church have full as much means given, as is fit for the Ends to which it is given, and yet the People will give more and more, to the Burden and ensnaring of the Church, and the impoverishing or ruin of the Common-wealth, here I think God consents not to accept that Gift, and therefore it was but an Offer, and not plenarily a Gift, for want of Acceptance; for he accepts not that which he prohibits. Here therefore the Magistrate may restore this to its proper use. But whether this were any of the Case of these (Sacrilegious) Alienations too lately made in this Land, is a farther Question: I apprehend a deep Guilt of Sacriledge upon some.
Ad 18m. The Particulars here mentioned must be distinctly considered:
1. About Fasts and Feasts, the Question as referring to the Obligation of the Laws of the Land, is of the same Resolution as all other Questions respecting those Laws; which being a Case more out of my way, I shall not presume to determine without a clearer Call. Only I must say that I see little Reason why those Men should think themselves bound in this, who yet suppose themselves loose from many other Laws, and who obey many of the Laws or Ordinances of the present Powers.
2. I much fear that not only the Querist, but many more are much ensnared in their Consciences, by misunderstanding the Nature and use of Synods. It's one thing for an Assembly of Bishops to have a superior Governing Power directly over all particular Churches and Bishops; and another thing for such an Assembly to have a Power of determining of things necessary for the Concord of the several Churches. I never yet saw it proved that Synods are over Bishops in a direct Governing Order, nor are called for such Ends; but properly in ordine ad Unitatem, and so oblige only (more than single Bishops) by Virtue of the General Precept, of maintaining Unity and Concord. This is the Opinion of the most learned Bishop and famous antiquary that I am acquainted with.
3. And then when the end ceases, the Obligation is at an End. So that this can now be no Law of Unity with us.
4. All human Laws die with the Legislator, farther than the surviving Rulers shall continue them. The Reason is drawn from the Nature of a Law, which is to be jussum Majestatis, in the Common wealth, and every where to be a sign of the Rectors Will de debito, vel constituendo, vel confirmando: Or his Authoritative Determination of what shall be due from us and to us. Therefore no Rector, no Law: and the Law that is, though made by the deceased Rector, is not his Law, but the present Rector's Law, formally; it being the signifier of his Will: And it is his Will for the continuance of it, that gives it a new Life. In all this I speak of the whole Summa potestas that hath the absolute Legislative Power. If therefore the Church Governors be dead that made these Laws, and no sufficient Power succeeds them to continue these Laws and make them theirs, then they are dead with their Authors.
5. The present Pastors of the Church (though but Presbyters) are the true Guides of it, while Bishops are absent (and the true Guides conjunctly with the Bishops, if they were present, according to the Judgment of your own side). Whoever is the sole existent governing Power… may govern, and must be obeyed in things Lawful. Therefore you must (for all your unproved Accusation of Schism) obey them. The Death or Deposition of the Bishops depriveth not the Presbyters of that Power which they had before.
6. Former Church Governors have not Power to bind all that shall come after them, where they were before free: But their Followers are as free as they were.
7. The Nature of Church Canons is to determine of Circumstances only for a present time, place or occasion, and not to be universal standing Laws, to all Ages of the Church: For if such Determinations had been fit, God would have made them himself, and they would have been contained in his perfect Word. He gives not his Legislative Power to Synods or Bishops.
8. Yet if your Conscience will needs persuade you to use those Ceremonies, you have no ground to separate from all that will not be of your Opinion.
9. For the Cross, the Canons require only the Minister to use it, and not you: and if he do not, that's nothing to you.
10. Have you impartially read what is written against the Lawfulness of it, by Amesius's fresh Suit, Bradshaw, Parker, and others: If you have: you may at least see this, that it's no fit matter to place the Churches Unity or Uniformity in: and they that will make such Laws for Unity go beyond their Commission. Church Governors are to determine the Circumstances pro loco & tempore in particular, which God hath in Word or Nature made necessary in genere, and left to their Determination. But when Men will presume beyond this, to determine of things not indeed circumstantial, or no way necessary in genere nor left to their Determination (as to institute new standing Symbols in and with God's Symbols or Sacraments, to be engaging Signs to engage us to Christ, and to Work Grace on the Soul as the Word and Sacraments do, that is by a moral Operation) and then will needs make these the Cement of Unity; this is it that hath been the Bane of Unity, and Cause of Divions.
11. Kneeling at the Sacrament is a Novelty introduced many hundred years after Christ, and contrary to such Canons and Customs of the Church, to which for Antiqui…y and Universality, you owe much more respect, than to the Canons of the late Bishops in England.
12. If your General Rule hold that you stand bound by all Canons, not repealed by equal Power, you have a greater burden on your back than you are aware of, which if you bore indeed, you would know how little this usurped Legislative Power befriends the Church: And among others, you are bound not to kneel in the Church on any Lord's Day, in Sacrament or Prayer. Grotius de Imperio Sumpotest. would teach much more Moderation in these Matters than I here perceive.
Ad Q. 19m. 1. It's too much Self-conceitedness and Uncharitableness to pass so bold a Censure as your Supposition doth contain, of the visible ruling Church being Schismatical, and so Heretical. Which is the ruling Church? I know none in England besides Bishops that pretend to rule any but their own Provinces; and but few that pretend Order to Regiment. Perhaps when the Schism and Herefie come to be opened, it will not be found to lye where you imagin, nor so easily proved as rashly affirmed, or intimated.
2. Do not be too sensible of Persecution, when Liberty of Conscience is so proclaimed, though the Restriction be somewhat on your side. O the difference of your Persecution, and theirs that suffered by you!
3. The only conscionable and safe way for the Church and your own Souls, is to love, long for, pray, and consult for Peace. Close in the unanimous practice of so much as all are agreed in: In amicable Meetings endeavour the healing of all breaches: Disown the ungodly of all Parties: Lay by the new violent Opinions inconsistant with Unity. I expect not that this advice should please the prejudiced: But that it's the only safe and comfortable way, is the Confident Opinion of
Your Brother, Richard Baxter