Vindication of the Church of England in Her Rites and Ceremonies, Part 2 – Part 15
2. Epiſcopal Confirmation.
Scripture-Proof of Infant-Church-memberſhip, Part. II. cap. 6. p. 120.
I humbly propound (ſays Mr. Baxter) that the ancient practice of Confirmation may be reduced to its primitive nature (i.e. as 'tis now uſed in the Church of England) as plainly appears by his calling it (in the ſame page) The old Order of Confirmation by Biſhops: For this he cites Calvin as earneſtly deſiring it, Inſtit. l. 4. cap. 19.
In the 122. page, he intimates Confirmation alſo to be one of thoſe plain Duties not to be wiped out, leſt the Directory be found more defective than the Common▪Prayer-Book, and left the World be made believe that 'tis ſuch things (i.e. ſuch plain Duties) as theſe that we find fault with. He adds, that ſince there are ſo many learned and judicious oppoſers, (meaning the Epiſcopal Divines) obſerving the alterations, therefore (ſays he) 'tis but modeſt and rational to deſire, either the eſtabliſhment of the fore-mentioned particulars, viz. Confirmation, Standing up at the Creed, &c. or the publication of ſatisfactory Reaſons againſt them.
And in his Political Apheriſms, Theſ. 236. Let Miniſters (ſays he) be reſtrained by Law, from admitting the uncatechiſed and unconfirmed to Communion, (intimating very well, that he would have them looked upon as excommunicate perſons that refuſe to be chatechiſed and confirmed:) to which he prefixeth, that if Magiſtrates force not the groſly ignorant to hear and learn, and ſubmit to chatechiſing, and ſuch means of inſtruction, till they are confirmed, their Baptiſm will but let in corruption and confuſion into the Churches. He hath in his Treatiſe of Confirmation, p. 206, 307, 208. & alibi, ſoundly aſſerted the cauſe of Conformity in this point, which his deluded Followers do ſo profanely and ſcornfully, not onelyonly neglect, but contemn and deride. Nor can I find that ever Mr. Baxter found much fault with the manner of its Adminiſtration, as now in the Church of England. If he would have every Pariſh-Miniſter inveſted with the power of Confirming, 'tis no more than what the Canons of the Church allow, if the Biſhop think fit, (the Biſhop or Suffragan, ſays the 60. Canon.) Every Pariſh-Miniſter may be made a Suffragan, if the Biſhop ſo pleaſe.
3. Church-Muſick by Organs, or ſuch like Inſtruments.
In his Chriſtian Directory, Eccleſiaſtical Caſes.Q. 86.
Mr. Baxter renders theſe five Reaſons for the Uſe and Lawfulneſs thereof.
1. God ſet it up long after Moſes's Ceremonial Law, by David, Solomon, &c.
2. It is not meerly an inſtituted Ceremony, but a natural help to the Minds alacrity; and 'tis a duty, and not a ſin to uſe the helps of Nature and lawful Art: As it is lawful (ſays he) to uſe Spectacles in reading the Bible, ſo it is to uſe Muſick (ſpeaking of Church-Muſick) to exhilarate the Soul.
3. Jeſus Chriſt joined with the Jews that uſed it.
4. No Scripture forbids it, therefore it is not unlawful.
5. Nothing can be againſt it, that I know of, but what may be ſaid againſt Tunes and Melody; for whereas they ſay, 'tis humane invention, ſo are our Tunes (Metre and Verſion:) nay, it is not a humane invention, as the laſt Pſalm, and many others ſhew, which call us to praiſe the Lord with Inſtruments of Muſick.
The laſt Book he hath printed (that I know of) viz. Poetical Fragments hath in its Preface more to the ſame purpoſe.
4. Godfathers and Godmothers.
Infant-Church-memberſhip, p. preliminary to the Epiſtle.
Mr. Baxter there tells us, that the currant conſent of Hiſtorians aſſures us of the uſe of Godfathers and Godmothers at the Baptizing of Infants in Hyginus's time, who lived (as he alledgeth from Nicephorus, Paraeus, Prideaux, and others) within about 40 Years of S. John the Apoſtle, and converſed with the Diſciples and Familiars of the Apoſtles, and therefore (ſays he) could not be ignorant of the practice of the Apoſtles in Baptizing Infants. Thus hath he well proved the uſe of Godfathers and Godmothers, in all probability to be Apoſtolical, at leaſt, foreign, and beyond all reach of ſcruple, to be of greateſt antiquity in the Church, viz. forty years within the Apoſtles times.*Yet this is that ſome of the Non-conformiſts have called one of the hardeſt points in Conformity.
5. The Antiphones, or the Peoples bearing a Part with the Miniſter in Divine Service.
Chriſtian Direct. Caſes Eccleſiaſt. Q. 83.
1. Says Mr. Baxter, the Scripture no where forbids this.
2. If the People may do this in the Pſalms in Metre, there can be no reaſon given, but they may lawfully do it in Proſe.
3. The Primitive Chriſtians, (ſays he) were ſo full of the zeal and love of Chriſt, that they would have taken it for an injury, or quenching of the Spirit, to have been wholly reſtrained from bearing a Part in the Praiſes of the Church.
4. The uſe of the Tongue keeps awake the mind, and ſtirs up God's Graces in his Servants.
5. It was the decay of Zeal in the People that firſt ſhut out Reſponſes: while they kept up the ancient zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in the worſhip. Thus Mr. Baxter, with more to the ſame purpoſe in the place above cited.
6. Bowing at the Name of JESUS.
Chriſtian Directory Caſes Eccleſiaſtical. Q. 86.
That we may lawfully expreſs our reverence by bowing when the Names [GOD, JEHOVAH, JESUS, &c.] are uttered, I have met with few Chriſtians that deny, nor know I any reaſon to deny it; 'tis true, he ſpeaks of it as equally lawful in it ſelf to bow to the Name JEHOVAH, GOD, &c. as well as JESUS, but nothing at all againſt the lawfulneſs of bowing at the name of JESUS.
7. It is certain from God's Word, that the Child ſo Baptized, dying before it commit actual ſin, is undoubtedly ſaved.
Mr. Baxter in his Plea for Peace makes angry exception againſt this in the Rubrick after Baptiſm, as one one of thoſe things which it is ſinful to aſſent to; though whoever reads his Scripture-proof of Infants Church-memberſhip, will find it none of his foreign,that Children (indefinitely, and in materia neceſſaria, as will appear by and by) are holy by ſtated ſeparation to God; and that all Children of Believers, (whether ſincere or hypocrites, if they are Believers profeſſedly) are undoubtedly ſaved, and we baptize the Children of no others than of Believers, profeſſedly at leaſt. For this ſee in his
Scripture-proof of Infants Church-memberſhip: His Animadverſions on Mr. Bedford's Tratiſe of Baptiſmal Regeneration.
P. 315. Speaking of Baptiſm, he hath theſe words;The third Edition. For the pardon of Original Sin, and other relative Grace, I affirm that we are to judge it probably given to the Child of every Believer, and if any will ſay, it is certainly given to every ſuch Child, even the Non-Elect, I will not gainſay him. Theſe are his words ipſiſſime, which fully and plainly import that the Children of Non-Elect Believers, (i.e. Believers in profeſſion onelyonly,) do by Baptiſm receive remiſſion of Original ſin, and other relative Grace; whether it be on the account of the Faith of the Church in which he is baptized, or of the bare profeſſion of the Parents Faith, is excentrick to my buſineſs to diſpute. To proceed; In the ſame page laſt cited, ſaith Mr. Baxter, God hath clearly made the Parents Faith the condition of Infants pardon and ſalvation. What Faith, and what Parents? Why, profeſſedly-believing Parents, and the bare profeſſion of Faith. For which ſee his Infant Church-memberſhip, Part. 1. cap. 29. p. 94. Profeſſion (ſays he) is a probable ſign, and a Profeſſor is probably a true Believer; and whether he be ſo or no, we are bound to admit him among Believers; and p. 92. it is ſufficient that the Parent be virtually and diſpoſitively a Believer, (in contradiſtinction to his being actually ſuch,) and in his Letter to Mr. Cranford, Is it not a large comfort to Parents (ſays he) that God doth pardon Infants their Original ſin, and put them in ſtatum ſalutis; but what I firſt quoted of him, is inſtar omnium, viz. that the Children even of the Non-Elect, have pardon of ſin, and other relative grace by Baptiſm.
8. Kneeling at the Sacrament.
Chriſtian Directory, Caſes Eccleſiaſtical. 98.
Had I my choice, ſays Mr. Baxter, I would receive the Lords Supper ſitting, but where I have not my choice, I will uſe the geſture which the Church uſeth. There ſpeaks an Oracle; good Reader, mark him; What could be ſaid more Orthodox and honeſt? And becauſe he ſpeaks ſo home in this one place, I'le forbear citing thoſe in his Cure of Church-diviſions; and in his Reaſons of the Chriſtian Religion, where in the one place he calls Kneeling an inoffenſive harmleſs Ceremony; in the other, he teacheth that Veſture, Geſture, Time, Place, &c. are all at the determination of the lawful Magiſtrate.
9. Epiſcopacy is Apoſtolical, and of Divine Inſtitution.
Chriſtian Directory, Caſes Eccleſiaſtical. Q. 56. p. 127.
Having proved the particular Orders of Presbyters and Deacons, he gives his Reaſons for a larger Epiſcopacy, as the Margin ſhews;
Beſides this, ſays he, in the Apoſtles days there were under Chriſt in the univerſal Church many general Officers, that had the care of governing and overſeeing Churches up and down, and were fixed by ſtated relation, to none. Such were the Apoſtles, Evangeliſts, and many of their Helpers in their days. And moſt Chriſtian Churches think, that though the Apoſtolical, extraordinary Gifts, Priviledges, and Offices ceaſe, yet Government being an ordinary part of their work, the ſame Forms of Government which Chriſt and the Holy Ghoſt did ſettle in the firſt Age, were ſetled for all following Ages, though not with the ſame extraordinary Gifts and Adjuncts.
Becauſe 1. We read of the ſetling of that Form, viz. General Officers as well as Particular, but we never read of any abolition, diſcharge, or ceſſation of the Inſtitution.
2. If we affirm a Ceſſation without proof, we ſeem to accuſe God of mutability, as ſetling one Form of Government for one Age onelyonly, and no longer.
3. We leave room for audacious Wits to queſtion other Goſpel-Inſtitutions, as Paſtors, Sacraments, &c. and to ſay, that they were but for an Age onelyonly.
4. It was general Officers that Chriſt promiſed to be with to the end of the World, Matth. 28.20. Now, ſays he, this will hold good, or not; if not, then this General Miniſtry is to be numbred among humane additions, to be next treated of. If it do, then there is *Dioceſan Epiſcopacy.another part of the Form of Government (i.e. diſtinct from that of Presbyters and Deacons) proved to be of Divine Inſtitution. I ſay not another Church, but another part of the Government of both Churches univerſal and particular, becauſe ſuch general Officers are ſo in the univerſal, as to have a general overſight of the particular. As an Army headed onelyonly by the General himſelf, and a Regiment by the Colonel, and a Troop by the Captain; but the general Officers of the Army, as the Lieutenants General, and Majors General, &c. are under the Lord General, in and over the Army, and have a general overſight over the particular Bodies, (Regiments and Troops.)
Now if this be the inſtituted Form of Chriſt's Church-Government, that he himſelf rule abſolutely as General, and that he have ſome general Officers under him, (not any one having the charge of the whole, but in the whole unfixedly, or as they voluntarily part their Provinces) and that each particular Church have their own proper Paſtor, one or more; then who can ſay that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine Appointment or Command.
Thus Mr. Baxter foreign, ſolidly proving the Divine Inſtitution of Dioceſan Epiſcopacy, and ſufficiently confuting all that he hath ſo paſſionately wrote againſt the Order of Biſhops, and the Conſtitution of National Churches.
10. The Oath of Prieſts and Deacons for Canonical Obedience to their Dioceſan.
Chriſtian Directory, Caſes Eccleſiaſtical. Q. 122.
The old Non-conformiſts, ſays he, who thought the Engliſh Prelacy an unlawful Office, yet maintained that it is lawful to take the Oath of Canonical Obedience, becauſe they thought it was impoſed by the King and Laws; and that we ſwore to them not as Officers, claiming a divine right in the Spiritual Government, but as Ordinaries or Officers made by the King, to exerciſe ſo much Eccleſiaſtical Juriſdiction under him, as he can delegate. —And if Prelacy were proved never ſo unlawful, no doubt but by the Kings command we may ſwear, or perform formal Obedience to a Prelate, as he is the King's Officer. Thus Mr. Baxter; though in Plea this is in the enumeration of thoſe things which he ſays it is ſinful to conform to. And here note that this conceſſion of Mr. Baxter ſpeaks it lawful to ſwear Obedience, not onelyonly to the Biſhop, but alſo to the Chancellor, to the Biſpops Officials, &c. becauſe they are the Kings Officers: though the Oath of Canonical Obedience requires no ſuch thing, but to the Biſhop onelyonly and his chief Miniſters.
11. The Surplice.
His Five Diſputations, p. 409.
Some decent Habit is neceſſary, the Magiſtrate, Miniſters, or aſſociated Paſtors muſt determine what,— If they tie all to one habit (and ſuppoſe it were an indecent habit) yet this is but an imprudent uſe of power, it is a thing within the Magiſtrates reach, he doth not an alien, but his own work amiſs: And therefore the thing in it ſelf being lawful, I would obey him, and uſe that Garment, if I could not be diſpenſed with; yea though ſecondarily the whiteneſs be to ſignifie purity, and ſo be made a teaching ſign, yet would I obey.
12. The Croſs at Baptiſm.
Chriſtian Directory, Caſes Eccleſiaſtical, Q. 113.
Mr. Baxter doth there allow of the Sign of the Croſs to be uſed out of Baptiſm, before a Heathen, which ſhews that he doth not believe the uſe of the Croſs to be ſimply and of it ſelf unlawful.
That which Non-conformiſts urge for the unlawfulneſs of it, is its being forbidden in the ſecond Commandment, as a tranſient Image, and its being made a Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace; whereas if it were either of theſe, it would be ſo at other times as well as after Baptiſm; for the time or place wherein it is uſed, cannot alter the nature of the thing. So that from Mr. Baxter's own conceſſion may be reaſonably inferred the lawfulneſs of its uſe; but in his 123. p. he is more poſitive.
Queſt. May one offer his Child to be baptized with the ſign of the Croſs, or the uſe of Chriſm, the white garment, &c.?
Anſ. When he cannot lawfully have better, he may and muſt offer his Child to them that will ſo baptize him, rather than to do worſe, or not at all; becauſe Baptiſm is God's Ordinance and the Childs Priviledge, and the Sin the Miniſters and not his.
Mr. Baxter hath a frequent diſtinction of Conformity into an Old and New. By the Old Conformity he means thoſe points of Conformity which were in being, and were taken for Conformity-points, before the laſt Act for Ʋniformity was made, and were there no more required now than Conformity to thoſe points, he ſays, many of the Nonconformiſts would conform. The New Conformity, which he ſeems to ſay moſt ſtick at, is differenced from the old in the acceſſion of theſe two points in chief, Reordination and Renouncing the Covenant, of both which Mr. Baxter hath ſufficiently aſſerted the lawfulneſs.
13. Reordination.
Chriſtian Directory, Caſes Eccleſiaſtical. Q. 21.
Mr. Baxter there grants, that the outward part of Ordination may be repeated: Which I take to be a full and plain conceſſion of the whole, for in Reordination there is nothing repeated but the outward part, or Ceremony of Inveſtiture.
14. Renouncing the Covenant.
Plea for Peace. p. 213.
It is not in the Subjects power, by Vows to withdraw themſelves from obedience to Authority.
Directory, Sect. 43. A Vow is as null, ſays Mr. Baxter, when the matter is morally or civilly out of our power; as if a Child or Servant vow a thing which he cannot do lawfully without the conſent of Parent or Maſter, though the thing it ſelf be lawful: For God having bound me to obey my Superiours in all lawful things, I cannot oblige my ſelf by my own Vows. Sect. 79. of his Directory.
15. The defects and faults of the Liturgy.
When Mr. Baxter in his Plea for Peace excepts againſt the whole Liturgy, all the Common-Prayer-Book-Forms in groſs, as faulty and defective: In the ſame place he confeſſeth the faults to be no other, than what with them the Forms of Prayers may be uſed by a godly man either in obedience to Authority or for Unity, or when better cannot be had.