Mr. BAXTER's VINDICATION OF THE CHURCH of ENGLAND In her Rites, and Ceremonies, Discipline, AND CHURCH-ORDERS.
1. Standing up at the Creed and the Antiphones.
Mr.
Baxter's Scripture-Proof of Infant-Church-membership.
Part. II. cap. 6. p. 121.
I Humbly propound (meaning to the Assembly of Divines) that the Custom of standing up at the Creed, may be reduced to its Primitive nature and vigour [ i.e. as 'tis now in use in the Church of England; it being then quite out of use.) And in the next Page he reckons this among one of those five plain Duties, which he says must not [Page 20] be wiped out, lest the Directory be found more defective than the Common-Prayer-Book.
In his Sacrilegious Desertion of the Ministry Rebuked,] he says, that the Conformists in standing up at the Antiphones, (viz. Gloria Patri, Te Deum, Jubilate, &c.) do better than the Non-conformists in not standing up.
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 [Page 21] (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 onely 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, [Page 22] 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, [...], and [Page 23] 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 [...],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
[Page 25] 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 onely,) 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 [Page 26] 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 [Page 27] 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 onely, 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 onely.
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 onely by the General himself, and a Regiment by the Colonel, and a Troop by the Captain; but the general [Page 28] 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 [...], 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 [Page 29] 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 onely 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 onely 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 [Page 31] 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.
16. The Errour of demanding a Scripture-text, or rule, for Ceremonies and Circumstances of Gods Worship.
Mr.
Baxters Defence of the Principles of Love,
Part 1. p. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102.
There are men otherwise very honest, and truly godly, who think that the Scripture is intended by God, not onely as a general, but a particular Law, or Rule, for all the very circumstances of Worship; and that the second commandment in particular, condemns all that is the invention of men, in or about the Worship of God; and that to deny this, is to deny the perfection of Scripture— I hope the number is but small that are of this opinion. We are obliged to take heed of countenancing this Errour—For if it prevail, what abundance of hurt will it do?
[Page 33]1.—2. It draweth men into the dangerous guilt of adding to the Word of God, under pretence of strict expounding it, and defending its perfection and extent.
3.—4. It altereth the very definition of the the holy Scripture, and maketh it another thing. That which God made to be the Record of his holy Covenant, and the Law and Rule of Faith and Holiness, and the general Law for outward modes and circumstances, which are but accidents of Worship, is pretended by men to be a particular Law, for that which it never particularly medleth with.
5. If sorely prepares men for Infidelity, and to deny the divine authority of the Scripture, and utterly to undo all, by over-doing. If Satan could but once make men believe, that the Scripture is a rule for those things which are not to be found in it, and which God never made it to be a rule for. He will next argue against it, as a delusory and imperfect thing— he that believes it to be given as such a particular rule, and then finds that it is silent, or utterly insufficient to that use, is like next to cast it away as a delusion, and turn an Infidel, or Antiscripturist.
6. This mistake tends to cast all rational Worship out of the Church and the World.
7. This opinion will bring in all confusion, instead of pure reasonable Worship, while every man is left to find that in Scripture, which never was there, and that, as the onely rule of his actions, one will think that he finds one thing there, and another another thing, for it must be reality and verity which must be the term of Unity, men cannot agree in that which is not.
8. It will let in Impiety and Errour, for when men are sent to seek and find that which is not there, every [Page 34] man will think that he findeth that which his own corrupted mind brings thither.
9. And hereby all possibility of Union among Christians and Churches must perish, till this errour perish; for if we must unite onely in that which is not in being, we must not unite at all.
10. Hereby is laid a Snare to tempt men into odious censures of each other; (of which see my Author excellently at large.)
11. Hereby Christian love will be quenched, when every man must account his Brother an Idolater, that cannot shew a Scripture for the hour, the place of Worship, &c.
12. And hereby back-biting, slandering, and railing must go currant as no sin, while every Calvin, Cartwright, Hildersham, Perkins, Sibbs, &c. that used a Form of Prayer, yea, all the Christians in the World must be accused of Idolatry, as if it were a true and righteous charge: And
13. All our sins will be fathered on God, as if the second Commandment, and the Scripture-perfection required all this, and taught Children to disobey their Parents and Masters, and say your Prayers and Catechisms are Images and Idols, &c.
14. It will rack and perplex the Consciences of all Christians, when I must take my self for an Idolater, till I can find a particular Law in Scripture for every Tune, Metre, Translation, Method, Vesture, Gesture, &c. that I use in the worshipping of God; when Conscience must build onely in the Air, and rest only on a word which never was.
15. It will have a confounding influence into all the affairs and business of our lives.
Lastly, It will fright poor people from Scripture and Religion, and make Us, our Doctrine and Worship [Page 35] ridiculous in the sight of all the World.
These are the consequences (which Mr. Baxter shews very well at large) of that impracticable and erroneous doctrine of demanding a particular Text of Scripture for the Ceremonies and Circumstances of Gods worship.
17. The Church of
England not guilty of any kind of False-worship.
Defence of the Principles of Love.
Part 2. p. 3, 4.
Mr. Baxter having recited the seven several kinds of false Worship, acquits the Church of England from all, and proves at large (in the Pages here cited) that it is not guilty of false Worship in any kind or any acceptation whatsoever, any more than Mr. Bagshaw (whom he there speaks particularly to) or the rest of the Non-conformists are in their extemporate Prayers.
18. A general Vindication of the Liturgy and Ceremonies.
Defence of the Principles of Love.
Part 1.90, 91.
To do it ( i.e. to use, as he calls it, an unreformed Liturgy) out of choice, is one thing; to do it as a duty put upon us by Gods providence and our Governours, when we can do no better, is another thing: it is God that hath pulled down our liberty and opportunity to serve him better, and we must obey him. It is no [Page 36] faulty mutability to change our practice, when God by changing our condition doth change our duty; no more than it was in Augustine, who professeth that he would worship God, as to Forms and Ceremonies, according as the Church did with which he joined, where-ever he came.
19. The soundness of the Doctrine of the Church of
England.
Defence of the Principles of Love.
Part 2. p. 3.
The Doctrine of the Church of England is so sound, that the Independents and Presbyterians have still offered to subscribe to it, in the 39. Articles.
Thus hath Mr. Baxter copiously vindicated the Church of England in almost every point of Conformity which is any thing material; which shews that Non-conformists themselves do not really believe what they have suggested to, and imposed upon the belief of their Followers concerning the sinfulness of Conformity.
And that what they except against in Conformity, is not upon the account of its Sinfulness, but Inexpediency onely; which neither the Law of God, Nature nor Nations did ever allow the People to be Judges of, but the Rulers [Page 37] onely: and therefore ought in point of Christianity and right Religion, to be submitted to, for the sake of those great Christian duties, Peace, Unity and Obedience to Magistrates; for the conviction of our religious Enemies, for the good and prosperity of the Church, for the safety, honour, and welfare of the King and three Kingdoms, for the credit of Christianity, and for the glory of God, to whom be glory for ever and ever.