only with Directions for determining of the Species, when the said Species
is of uncertain, inconstant, mutable Dueness: He that faith a Duty of so great
and standing necessity, is not so much as implicitly commanded in Scripture,
doth plainly say, that besides the Scripture, which is insufficient, God hath either
another more perfect Law for Supernaturals, or else, another part to add to the
Scripture to make it perfect. Your Addition mollifieth the Matter in Terms, but
I doubt scarce in Sense, for when you say that (the Texts where Imposition of Hands
is spoken of commented upon by the universal Practice of the Church from the first
Age, till this wild exorbitant last Century, seems a clear Evidence what the Will of
Christ is,
) I very much like the Words and Sense which they in propriety express,
That in a Matter of Fact, where Scripture is obscure, the Practice of
the first, second, or third Centuries may be an excellent Commentary; that is, a
help to understand them; much more the Practice of the universal Church in all
Ages. But I must tell you, that it is not the Work of a Commentary on the Laws
expressly to add such Precepts, about matters of such very great Concernment, as is
the very being of the Republic, which are neither expressly, or implicitly in the
Law itself, I must judge therefore, that you make the Churches Practice a real
Law, though you thought meet to give it but the Title of a Comment. And I scarce
approve of your comparative Terms of the Centuries as bad as this is? What! hath
this Century, which hath been the only reforming Age, been worse than that
before it, whose Corruptions it reformed? and worse than that of which
What
worse than the four or five foregoing Centuries, wherein Murderers, Traitors,
common Whoremongers, Sodomites, Heretics were the pretended Heads of the
Church, and grossly ignorant, superstitious and wicked ones were the conspicuous
part of the Body. Will you appeal from this Century to those? Did you not even
now confess, that (it is admirably worth our Consideration that when God stirred
up the drowsy World to depart from
's Superstitions and Idolatries, he bowed
the Hearts of some of the Church-Officers to go along with them)
then was
idolatrous. We departed from it, God stirred Men up, and bowed their Hearts
thereto: I confess you may say as much for the proving of the Universal Churches
Practice, in this Point, as in most, it being of constant and solemn use, and none
that I know of, that ever opposed it. But if you hold this universal Practice to be
the other part of God's Law, and do lay anything much on it in other Points,
especially in Doctrinals, I would advise you to get better Proof of the Universality
than others use to bring, who go that way. As the Romish Church is not the
the Universal, nor the Romish and Greek together, so the Opinion of four or five,
or more Fathers is no Evidence, of the Judgment of the universal Church: Till
they are better agreed with themselves and one another; it is hard taking a view of
the Judgment of the Church universal in them, in controverted Points. Till
and many the like Discords; it's hard seeing
the Face of the Church universal in this Glass. I was but even now reading in
in his Writings
against him; when yet to the impartial Reader, the angry Man, that
had the unsounder Cause. As long as the Writings of
as long as many Councils have so erred, and Council is a great Council, and some
things
are imposed by them, under the terrible Pennalty of Anathematizing,
which
itself doth take unlawful to be observed, these are not perfect
of the Mind of Christ or the universal Church. Read
on this; yet think not that I
would detract from the due Estimation of the Fathers, or Councils, or from the necessity
of Tradition to the use which I have expressed in the Preface to the Second
part of my Book of
But I know not well in the matter of Not-kneeling and
Not-fasting on the Lord's Day, Not-reading the Books of Heathens,
how a
Man should obey both the former Councils, and the present Church of
it
self; yea, or how in matter of giving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to Insants,
and other things the present Church and the former do agree. And I would
know, whether it was not the Practice of that which you call the universal Church
then, which the following Ages did alter and contradict. But all this part of the
Answer is but occasional as to your Amplifications, and not to the matter under debate.
I further answer you therefore, that the universal Practice of the Church
doth prove no more but that it was done, and therefore by them judged a Duty
to be done, and so not to be omitted while they could use it; all which I grant
you. I am not one that would have Ordination used without Imposition, but in
case of necessity: But it follows not from all this, that it is essential to Ordination;
suppose a Church institute a new Ceremony, that every Bishop ordained shall have
a Helmet on, to signify that he must fight valiantly as a Captain under Christ, and
the Ordainer must lay his Hands on this: If I can prove that it hath been the
universal Practice of the Church
doth it follow
that this is essential, and the contrary null? If you ask, what necessity there can be
of Ordination
for want of which the Church hath suffered, and may suffer very
much. When a Man is in remote Parts of the World, and perhaps too scrupelous
of playing the Bishop without Ordination, if he must travel over Land and Sea
for Ordination, his Life may be gone, or most of it spent, while he is seeking Authority
to use it for his Master. If a few only of the Ordainers were left in a
Country, or in many Nations, and those imprisoned or forced to hide themselves,
they might by an Instrument under their Hands Ordain, when they could not at
all, or to one of a hundred by Imposition of Hands. But yet all this is but the
least necessary part of my Answer to your Argument. To your Consequence
therefore, I answer by denying it: If the Succession be interrupted, what necessity
is there that the next must come in without Imposition of Hands, what show of such
a Consequence? May not the illegitimate Ordainer
Or may he not
himself enter by Imposition of Hands, and yet be illegitimate, and his Calling null?
If you think not only Imposition to be essential, but also that nothing else is essential,
or that all are true Ministers that are ordained by a lawful Bishop
Suppose a lawful Bishop should
ordain a Man into an unlawful Office, as to be the universal Bishop; or should ordain
a known Heathen to be a Bishop by Imposition of Hands; were not this null?
Yea, and many a lower case (as in case of Simony,
) if Councils be of any
Authority. Here then the Succession is interrupted, and yet this Man may Ordain
others by Imposition of Hands: Suppose in the case of Pope
the Succession
interrupted for want of a capable Sex, and yet she might Ordain by Imposition of
Hands.
I answer, This Argument can pretend to prove no more than the
former, That Ordination is essential to the Call of the Ministry:
So far as
that is disproved, so far is this. And indeed, it had been stronger arguing a
then the necessity of Ordination: Many a Thousand will yield that Ordination
is essential (I believe) that will not yield it of that Imposition.
Having done with all that I find in this Paper, I add this cross Argument for the
enervating of all (or if you will of your Second, which is all). If your Arguments
do tend as well to prove the absolute Necessity of an uninterrupted Succession
quoad modum,
as to every Mode and Circumstance in Ordination, which the Apostles
have required as due, without express Dispensation for Omission, as of legitimate
Ecclesiastical Ordination itself; then they are unsound.
At verum prius:
Ergo,
The Antecedent is proved thus: The full Strength of all your Arguments is
here. Christ or his Apostles (or the Church since) have mentioned no other way
of Conveying Ministerial Power, but by Ordination and Imposition of Hands:
Ergo,
There is no other way; and this is necessary
ad esse Officii:
As strongly
may we argue for any Mode or convenient Circumstance so required or used. As
Christ or his Apostles mention no way of Ordination or of conveying the Ministerial
Power, but with Prayer conjunct, or but with Imposition of Hands on the bare
Head, or but in the Syriac, Hebrew, Greek, or Latin Tongues, or but on a Man
that is vigilant, sober, and of good Behaviour,
&c. Ergo,
There is no other way:
Ergo,
This is of absolute Necessity,
ad esse Officii.
But this is no good arguing:
Ergo,
No more is yours. It is as bad as if one had thus argued with the
Israelites
in
the Wilderness. (God hath mentioned no other way of Covenant Engagement,
or Church Entrance, but by Circumcision:
Ergo,
there is no other.
Ergo,
this is
necessary
ad esse foederis in Ecclesiae.
) They are no good
Iuris Consulti Christiani, i. e.
Theology that know not that some Cases must be judged, and some Laws interpreted,
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
, which yet is but according to the true Sense of that Law;
as Christ taught the Pharisees in the Case of
David,
the Priests, and his Disciples
rubbing the Ears of Corn.
I conclude all as I begun, desiring that if this satisfy you not, you would perform
the other Parts of your Undertaking, before, or with your Reply to this, and
blame not me, who am past all doubt of an Interruption of Succession in a great
part of the Churches, especially of the Romish, and uncertain of a Non-interruption
in any Church on Earth, and despair of ever being certain, to be as loath to
yield that Christ hath no Church Ministry or Ministerial Ordinances, or at least
none in so large a part of the professed Church, or that we are uncertain whether he
hath any at all; as you are loath to yield to the immediate Authorizing Efficacy of
the Law, or to the Sufficiency of the Magistrates, or Peoples Mediation in case of
necessity, or to an Occasion of encouraging Usurpers of the Ministry.
Tertullian de Baptismo, Cap. 17.
Had there been here no mention of the Episcopal Office or of teaching, the
Arguments would hold for it
Christ hath put Baptizing in the Apostolical
commission, appropriating that to them, as much as the rest. Yet whether
all this of
be approvable I now dispute not. But here you see the way of
Antiquity,
And it is not only the Papists that are still for Womens
baptizing in case of necessity (
to their Sense, contrary
to the whole Scope of his Words) but many other, and that very long ago,
and Lay-men were wont to preach in the Church then, how much more (as
did usually expound the
Scriptures publicly, before he was ordained, and was encouraged in it by the Bishops
themselves, of which
And if Lay-Men
might expound Scriptures, and teach publicly and ordinarily in the Presence of
the Bishop, and baptize in case of necessity (as
) how much more may they
in a case of necessity undertake the Ministerial Office without Legitimate Ecclesiastical
Ordination: and if all these Acts of Lay-Men be not null, then the Ordination
of a Man not lawfully ordained himself must be valid in case of a greater
necessity. This is the confident Opinion of the generality of Protestants. The
and many others say, a regular Call is by Magistrates, Ministers
and People; yet that it's valid, if one part fail:
and the other Apostles were ordained without
Imposition of Hands, so
both
against his Will, and when he was distant three Days Journey; as
avoided the Hands of the Bishop,
he by Prayer and solemn Words sets him a part to the Priesthood,
speaks
of as true Ordination, and the Form shows that it was a constituting him in that
Office, Bishop of
finding this Pinch upon his Cause,
would fain persuade us that this could yet be no Ordination till afterwards when he
came in and submitted to the Solemnities (
407, 408.) we will
not contend about the Word Ordination, but it was an authoritative Consecration
to God as a Bishop, and a Constituting him over that Church by Prayer and solemn
Words of Consecration. And it seems
and many others preached in
the Apostles Days without Ordination. But our Divines having dealt so much with
the Papists on this Subject, I suppose you may see more in their Writings, than you
can expect from
Mr. Baxter's Second Letter to Mr. Johnson.
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 Labor
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 anything in it, the contrary Judgments of all the Learned Divines
of
France, Belgium,
upper
Germany, Helvetia, Denmark, Sweeden, Scotland,
Transylvania, 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
Bramhall
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 meddled with the Point).
Ad 2
um
.
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
show 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 entering
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 willfully 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
verbose 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 lie in the Authoritative
Appointment; and, God having described the Person by his Qualifications,
I take the formal nature of this Appointment to lie 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 been 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 3
um
.
I marvel, that on so very slight Grounds, you think that [nothing is
more evident, than that the case of extreme 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 elicit
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 misleading 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 lie 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 intolerable 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 Ration mali, & e 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
Durand,
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 Men's 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 lieth 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 Skeptics 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 lieth 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. 4
um
.
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.
Mr. Johnson's Fourth Letter to Mr. Baxter.
ALthough I had purposed wholly to have superceded from my former Undertakings,
as conceiving them a fruitless Speculation in regard the Ministry may
be justified without them; yet, forasmuch as I did defy all Men alive to make
full Proof that the Succession ever hath, or ever shall be interrupted; and upon
the Occasion of this Defiance, you do rather invite me, than challenge me to renew
my Purpose: I cannot tell how I can avoid so much as my own Defiance
hath engaged me to. And therefore, though very unwillingly, I shall endeavor,
so far as my Defiance hath engaged me, to satisfy your Desire. And because I
herein stand upon the Defensive, and by consequence must find some Man that
pretends to make full Proof of the Question, before I can discharge that which
now I undertake; I cannot tell, where to meet with such an one, unless it
be yourself in your late Book: And therefore I shall apply myself to
examine your Argument, whereby you endeavor to prove that the Succession
hath been already interrupted: But before I come to that I shall return you something
to what you say in the last Papers. And
First,
whereas you tell me to my
Demand, that you have instanced in many English Writers, who do all plead
against the Papists the No-necessity of an uninterrupted Succession, I answer, that
amongst those Authors which you quote, I have none by me but Bishop
Jewel,
and so far as I can discern from the
locis allegatis aut alibi,
he speaks nothing at all
to the Question; what the other do, I shall examine hereafter as I meet with
them.
Ad 2
um
.
Whereas you tell me that my not seeing a formal Answer to my Second
Argument proceeded from an oversight of the Word
[shall]
and a Not-observation
of the Emphasis in it. To this I answer, that it is indeed true, that I
did not take heed enough to the Word, for if I had, I should not so indifferently
have sometimes used it, and sometimes put another Word in its room (which may
make it plain that the Word was changed through inanimadvertencey rather than
by design); But it was not the Not-observation of the Word, but the Not-understanding
of the what the Word contained in it that made the Error: For if I had understood
that it contained two Propositions: 1. That Men thus and thus qualified
shall
preach the Word, or it is the Duty of Men thus and thus qualified to preach
the Word. And then 2. That [Men thus and thus qualified,
ordinis gratia,
shall
be set apart to it, or shall be appointed to Preach] I never had made this
Animadversion, but should have acknowledged a formal Answer: But I understood
it only thus, that Men thus and thus qualified shall be appointed, that is,
it is their Duty, being so and so qualified to seek for Ordination, or it is their Duty
being so and so qualified to be appointed to the Work: which I thought
might be true, and yet they no Ministers till they were
de facto
set apart. But now
very well understanding, that it may well bear both Propositions, and the first
coming up close to the Question in hand, I shall willingly retract all that I said
upon that Point, and acknowledge a formal Answer, which I think may
satisfy.
But whereas you say, that by disclaiming my last Argument I denied Imposition
of Hands to be so necessary, and by urging something hereabouts did seem
to forget what I said anon. I answer, I did never intend to deny Imposition of
Hands to be of necessity to legitimate Ordination. I said indeed, an Argument
drawn from thence against the Question in Hand was frivolous. But I did not intend
to disparage the thing itself any farther than Relatively to the Question then
in debate. And whereas you say, that Fasting was not used; I answer, that
there never was any Ordination but Fasting was previous to it by the Appointment
of the Church in
Ember-Weeks,
which were constantly kept by the Sons of
the Church, though neglected by others, and this I think might serve, though it
was not the same Day, and I believe you will say so too. But in these things neither
will I be boisterous till I am better informed what may be the substantial or
essential Parts of Christ's Ordinances, and what not; which I confess I have not
yet such an Idea of; So as to say in every Ordinance what is essential, and what
not.
Ad. 3
um
.
Whereas you wonder that upon such slight Grounds I should so tenaciously
stand to part of my third Argument. I answer, that I did not intend
to enforce that the Case of extreme inculpable necessity was the Sectaries Case:
But such a Necessity as did inevitably entangle them in their Invasion of the Ministry,
which though it doth no ways make them lawful Ministers, yet it makes
them inconfutably lawful Ministers, till the Opinions which first made them separate
be proved to them to be erroneous; my meaning is this: I think if this Hypothesis
be true [that in case of extreme Necessity Men may, and some must enter
irregularly into the Ministry] it is not possible to convince an Anabaptist that
his Invasion of the Ministerial Work is unlawful, till we can first convince him that
Anabptism is erroneous. Now hereupon I thought their Hands was much
strengthened over what it would have been had that Hypothesis been false. For
then we could incontroulably have cleared their Invasion of the Work, though
they had in the mean time remained unconvinced of their erroneous Opinion.
But now if we cannot convince them of their Error, but their way still appear
Truth to them, then they need do no more to justify their Practice to themselves,
but borrow our Principle; and that sets them right, and so their Invasion
is inconfutable from what they borrow from ourselves. And so though they do
not justify themselves to us, because we think their Necessity culpable, and
through their own default, yet they so far justify by this very Principle their Practice
to themselves, that it renders them unconfutably lawful, till we can prove
and make it out plain to them, that their very Opinions are erroneous: So that
you mistook while you thought that I intended to prove their Practice lawful,
whereas all that I intended was to show that upon such a Principle their Invasion
became less confutable; and their Hands something strengthened over they could
have been upon the contrary Hypothesis; by which you may perhaps see what
Link of your Chain I intended to break. But enough of this, I shall now come
to the Business I first spake of.
First therefore you lay down the Episcopal Principles,
pag. 65. viz.
That no
Church is a true Church without Ministers; and no Man a Minister that is not
Ordained by a Bishop, and no Man a Bishop that is not ordained by a Bishop
lawfully called, and not deprived again of his Power: And this Bishop must be
Ordained by a former Bishop, and he by a former, and so the Succession must
be followed up to the Apostles.
Having done thus, you catechize these Seekers, as you call these Doctors: And
then proceed to prove that these Reverend, Learned, Pious Bishops, which you
acknowledge to be now in this Nation, are no lawful Bishops upon the Principles
laid down; because they were ordained by such as had no Authority to ordain.
This you prove because they were Ordained at length by the Popish Bishops in
Hen.
VIII. Time, who had no Authority to Ordain; this you prove, because
they derived their Authority from the Pope, who had no Authority to give
them any. That the Pope had no Authority you prove by an Interruption of
Succession of lawful Bishops in that Chair. That there hath been an Interruption
in that Chair you prove by the Instances of
Liberius, Honorias,
Dame
Ione,
and
many others, as you say, out of Bishop
Jewel.
The Strength of these Instances
depend upon that Hypothesis, that Heresy or notorious Impiety doth evacuate holy
Orders.
Now if it can be infallibly proved that Heresy or Impiety doth not evacuate
Holy Orders; or rather, if you cannot infallibly prove as it is my part at this
time to deny (I being upon the defensive) that Impiety or Heresy doth evacuate
Holy Orders, then it will not follow that there was an Interruption, though
Liberius
was an Heretic. And if no Interruption, then Pope
Clement
the Incumbent
at
Rome
in
Henry
VIII. Days, was, notwithstanding what is urged, in full
Power to Ordain: And then if he had Authority, then the Popish Bishops which
derived from him had full Authority; and if they had, then our Bishops who at length
derive from them have also full Athority: and so the whole Structure will fall at once
in that Hypothesis, which is the Foundation of all, shall chance to shake. And
therefore, Sir, in the first place, I pray you take notice, that I deny that Heresy
or Impiety doth evacuate Holy Orders; and expect the Proof of it.
••
But then suppose I should grant this (which I never intend) I may, I conceive,
falsely debate, that though there should be an Interruption in the Succession of
the Chair at
Rome,
yet the Pope that now is, or the Pope that sat at
Rome
in
Hen.
VIII. Days were fully authorized to ordain, if they were but ordained by such,
who neither were Heretical or Impious: For the Authority or Power of Ordination,
I conceive, doth not come to any Bishop by Virtue drawn from his Predecessor
in seed,
but by Virtue derived from him who laid Hands upon him at his
Consecration. For Example, that you may understand my meaning; suppose
Dr.
Winneffe,
the late Bishop of
Lincoln,
was consecrated by the Imposition of the
Bishop of
Worcestor's
Hand: I conceive it is unreasonable to affirm, that this Doctor
received his Episcopal Orders rather from Dr.
Williams,
his Predecessor in the
Chair at
Lincoln,
than from the Bishop of
Worcester,
who is supposed to lay Hands
upon him at his Consecration. Or if the Question be whether he was a lawful Bishop
that gave him Orders; I conceive that it is equally unreasonable that we
should go and inquire rather after Dr.
Williams
his Authority who was his Predecessor
in seed,
than after the Bishop of
Worcester,
who was, or is supposed in the
•
a
•
e to be his Consecrator. Or if
John Williams,
who was his Predecessor, should
have
de facto,
proved an Arian or a Conjurer while he sat in the Diocesan Chair
a
•
Lincoln,
I think it is every whit as unreasonable to affirm, that therefore Dr.
Winneffe,
who succeeded him in that Seat, should lose his Episcopal Authority,
when as his Consecrator can have no such thing fastened upon him. In like manner,
though
Liberius
was an
Arian
while he sat in the Pontifical Chair at
Rome;
yet if that Bishop, whoever he was, (and look you to that) who consecrated Pope
Clement
were Orthodox, and so forward till we come to the Apostles, his Authority
was good enough, though one, or more of his Predecessors
in seed
were Heretical.
If you shall say that the Case is not alike betwixt the Succession of Popes and
other Bishops: I ask, where's the difference? If you say that the difference is in
this, that the Pope claims not his Authority from his Consecrator, but from his
Predecessor. I answer, That it is very probable that he doth do so: But let him and
the Popish Doctors therefore see how they can quit their Hands of this Interruption:
For our parts we conceive we need not be engaged in this Controversy: It is enough
for us to reply to this asserted Difference. That the Question is not what they lay
claim to, but what they ought
de jure,
to lay claim to. If you say, That
de jure,
they do challenge their Authority from their Predecessors, I expect that you must
prove it, before I will promise you that I will believe it. But if you say, that the
Difference is only this, That they do
de facio
claim their Authority after another
manner than other Bishops; then I rejoin, that it doth not follow, that they
have their Authority after another manner than other Bishops; because they say
they have. If therefore the
facultas Ordinandi
doth not come from the Bishop's
Predecessor
in seed,
but from the Bishop who is the Consecrator. Then, Sir,
you must prove that some of those Bishops who Consecrated Pope
Clement
e're the
Succession reach the Apostles were Heretics: It little avails to prove that some of
his Predecessors
in Cathedre
was such, at least to me, who are unwilling to be
thought a Protestant.
But then
Thirdly,
Suppose we should grant this (which we likewise never intend)
how will you make it appear that our Bishops in
Hen.
VIII. Time had their Authority
from the then incumbing Pope. If you say, they went over to him for
Imposition of Hands, that's improbable; if you say he came over to them, that's
intolerable; if you say, that he did delegate his Authority to some of our English
Bishops, or sent a Deputy, or Nuncio authorized to those Ends: I answer,
that it may be true that he did so. But then the Question will again be, whether
our English Bishops had not full Authority to have done all this without his Knowledge;
or whether rather an Expectation of a Commission from him were not
a Fruit of the Error of those times holding him to be the universal Bishop: If it
was, though it be
Argumentum ad hominem,
and will again, I think, press fore
upon the Papists who assert the same) yet it doth nothing trouble us who assert no
such Universality. I ask therefore, must we acknowledge the Pope to be universal
Bishop; or must we not? if we must, why do we not? If we must not, why
should any Man urge that Practice in his own Defense, which he himself judgeth
to be erroneous: I speak plainlier, if the Bishops in
Hen.
VIII. Time had their
Authority from the Pope, then this must be pretended, I think, upon others
Grounds; either because the Bishops had indeed no Power to Ordain without his
Commission, or because they thought they had none, or because they could not
exercise that Power which they both had, and knew they had, without his leave.
If you say they had indeed no Power to Ordain without his Commission: I say,
that you are more than a
Cassandrian
Papist. If you say they had no Power because
they judged they had none. I deny the Consequence, and expect you
should prove it. Or 3. If you say they had their Authority from him because they
could not exercise it without his leave. I shall only propound this Case in answer
to you: Suppose General
Cromwell
should put in so between you and the Exercise
of your Ministry that without his leave you should not preach or administer
the Sacraments, would you say, if you had leave from him, that you derived
your Authority from him, because the external Exercise of your Authority depends
upon his Leave? I think you would not.
Well, Sir, I shall now only rehearse what I expect you should prove. And the
first thing that is expected is this: That Heresy or Impiety doth evacuate Holy
Orders. 2. That the Power of Ordination is derived from the Predecessor
in seed.
3. That some of Pope
Clement
's Consecrators e're his Line reach the Apostles
were heretical or impious. 4. You must prove that the Bishops in
Hen.
VIII.
Time did not only judge that they had dependence upon the Pope for Authority,
but that indeed they had no Authority but what they derived from him. If
you can indeed make good all this, then I shall confess that the Interruption of Succession
is made good also. But till then, I shall
〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
. Yet in the mean time
shall be a very great Admirer of your Worth, and Lover of your Industry,
M. Johnson.
Wamborn, Dec. 8. 1653.
For my Reverend and very Worthy Friend; Mr.
Baxter,
Minister of the Word at
Kidderminster,
These.
Numb. III. Letters between Mr. Baxter,
and Mr. Lamb.
Mr. Lamb's Letter to Mr. Baxter.
PERHAPS my Boldness may seem much in this Address to one unknown
by Face; but want of that is no sufficient Plea to restrain me,
knowing it's no Impediment to the Communion of Saints. These Lines
are writ out of much Affliction of Heart, and in many Tears which have run
over at the Throne of Grace many a time about the Case presented. The Reason
of my Address to you, rather than any other, is because of some Converse
I have had with your Writings, whereby I judge you to have the Tongue of the
Learned, to speak a Word in Season, being experienced yourself in Spiritual Affairs
and Temptations, the immediate Cause of this Address was my reading your
last Direction in the Book of Getting and keeping Peace and Comfort.
The Case is mine only, as it is the Case of one who is myself in the dear Relation
of a Husband; it is an unusual one, and therefore will require, I doubt,
you more Pains to reach it, and so is the more boldness in me, but from you will
be the more Service to Christ Jesus; if you engage in it I would be brief, but must of
necessity declare Circumstances. This dear Husband of mine, Mr.
Lamb,
is one that
hath been devoted to God's Fear from his Youth up, and hath desired exceedingly,
and delighted greatly to serve Christ Jesus our Lord; the Ministry he was nourished
and bred up in was, Mr.
John Goodwin
's, for Twelve or Thirteen Years, where
he joined a Member, and afterward by common Consent, and Prayer, and Fasting
was ordained an Elder over that Flock, and did labor in the Word and Doctrine
then with great delight, striving to adorn the Gospel in all Acts of Love,
Righteousness and Mercy. Going on thus with Joy, about Five Years ago the
great Controversion of Baptism had some access into his Judgment through the
means of another Member of that Body, Mr.
Allen,
a very Holy and good Man,
who having had long doubts about Infant Baptism, was carried to the other, by
means of Mr.
Fisher,
since Quaker; by these Arguments presented, Mr.
Lamb
was taken
in his Judgment, and in Conscience of his Duty did practice accordingly,
not thinking then, but still to hold communion with the Church notwithstanding,
but then suddenly was led farther, namely, to love the Communion of that
Church, and finding not where to find any Society in that Engagement where
they could have such means of Edification as they had left, they were induced
to join in a Body with some others, about Twenty that came off by their
means from the same Fellowship, and so for Five Years have gone on till there is
an Addition of about an Hundred. Pray, Sir, pardon my troubling of you with
this Story; but that which follows cannot so well be understood without it.
Which is, That now about Nine Months last past, by some Experiences and
Sights of the Faults of some, particularly that of
Fishers,
and disrelishing the Practices,
and Assertions of some, in unchurching all besides themselves, he began
to be provoked and pressed much in Spirit to consider the Grounds of separating
upon the account of Baptism, and in that Survey still their Weakness, which appeared
the more by reading yours, Mr.
Io. Goodwin,
and
Homes
Books of Baptism,
begot in him not only a Sight of Weakness in his Grounds about Separating,
but weakened his Confidence as to the opposing of Infant Baptism: In this time,
as things appeared to him (he being free and open Hearted) was ready to express
his Thoughts to those he conversed with, who being rigid about Separation, still
persuaded him these new Thoughts were Satan's Temptations, to hinder him in
the Lord's Work: Which occasioned much Prayer, and Fasting and Prayer;
that if these Thoughts were not of God's Holy Spirit, they might die from his
Soul. But still they increased and came with such Light and Power, argumentative
from Scripture, detecting his former Principles as to Separation. In this interim
he conversed with divers Ministers in Town, as Mr.
Goodwin's
Book, Mr.
Manton,
Dr.
Reignold
's about the meaning of 1
Cor. 12. 13, &c.
his thoughts still
carrying him on, till he had formed them into three Sheets of Paper; but all the
way it was a Fight with Temptations, as often is declared; yet his Light plainly
evincing the evil of Saints dividing upon the account of Baptism, although it
should stand good, Baptism should belong only to believers; And as I conceive
those Temptations partly occasioned by Friends, who out of their Love would
charge him to take heed, for some Roo
•
of Bitterness or other was the Ground of
these Thoughts, and some Carnal end he had, and was weary of Christ's Yoke,
and the Woes to Backsliders would be his Portion,
&c.
and that never any owned
these Principles that forsook them, but they became sad Objects of God's Displeasure;
Satan sitting in when these did occasion great Distress, and Searchings of Heart,
many Fears, Prayers, and Tears, fore Temptations that he was not sincere,
which was heightened by one Thought that he had espied in his Heart when he
was amidst these thoughts; namely, that to break the Neck of those strai
•
Principles
which would not permit any to Marry but to those in their own way would
be a Freedom in respect of his Daughters in their Marriages (who are but now Ten
and Eleven Years of Age) the Fears least the having of this in his Thoughts should
in answer to this, argue the
Predominancy
of the
interest of the Flesh,
hath filled
his
Soul with great distress,
which
I declare to you as a spiritual Physician, that you may
know the whole Case.
After seeking God, a little help was attained in this: and
he received some Testimony of Conscience that this Thought was not the moving
Cause of his change of Mind, or any predominant end, only an after
Thought which had some encouragement in it. When this Temptation was
over, then as bitter Fears about apostasy, all those Texts seeming to apply themselves
to him as speaks of an evil Heart of unbelief in departing from God, of
being cast out as a withered Branch; and these,
attended with Tears, and woundings
of Spirit:
If he did
cease from drawing up his Arguments, then be should have
ease;
but the Light of them was so pressing upon his Mind, that he could not
forbear: This hath been his Life for these Eight or Nine Months, having declared
his Arguments, the People to whom he is Elder, they grow offended and disturbed;
if he have any thought of returning to Mr.
Goodwin's
Church again,
then
nothing but Horror and as it were a flaming Sword in his Spirit:
is not that a
Ground that he ought not return thither? He finds most ease in his tender and
fair Entreaties of the People he is now with, to keep them from Separating to the
further prejudice of their Souls: Having a little ease about the Fear of Apostasy,
by finding by Experience that his Soul never went out in such strong Desires
and high Praisings of Jesus Christ, and earnest Desires to serve him in his Gospel,
and having in this time more abundantly than ever found his Soul emptied of self-esteem,
and sense of his need of Christ's Nourishing and Cherishing. After this,
the next Temptation which now he wrestles with is,
hard Thoughts of God,
as if he
were hard, not easy to be entreated,
&c.
These sore Temptations hath made him
ready to saint, saying sometimes, O that he were settled in his former Thoughts
against Infant Baptism, and could practice with a good Concience as he had done
the other, to this it's suggested, no now it shall be hid from him, he received not
the Truth in the Love of it,
&c.
and
Heb.
12. 17. made use of to wound him
that he obtained not the Blessing though he sought it carefully with Tears: These
Thoughts occasioned strong Cries, and Tears, and great Distress of Soul. Yet
Sir, take notice that all this while his now Arguments to one Communion with all
Saints, as Saints, are never questioned in his Judgment, but all admitted to him;
nay, all that have seen them, who are divers of the Re-baptism, have not any of
them as yet offered anything to detect them, but contrariwise, they have had
their force in the Minds of some.
Now, dear Sir, I hope you understand my Scriblings, the end of all is to entreat
your help as one that Christ hath set in his Church for the edifying and establishing
of his Members; judging you faithful, and one of a Thousand in experience,
I have taken the boldness to entreat your Answer to the following Particulars.
1.
Whether
God doth use to leave any of his Servants to such bitter Temptations when
they are about a Service acceptable to him?
If so, what his Ends may be in it?
2. Whether these Distresses of Spirit can be any Demonstration that his former
Practices and Principles about restraining Communion to after Baptism, nor more
pleasing to God's Spirit, which hath seemed to be proved, and so Dependant:
These latter Arguments about largeness in that kind.
3. Whether considering his former Relation to Mr.
Goodwin
's Congregation,
from whom he withdrew upon the Thought he had of unlawfulness to communicate
with unbaptised Persons, which now he sees the Vanity of, it be not now his
Duty to return thither, and if so, then 1. What should be the Reason that his
Conscience, though very tender in other things, should have little or no sense of
that as his Duty. And 2. What should then be the Reason, that when he hath
had any Thoughts tending that way, such Terrors, like a flaming Sword should
pierce his Soul?
4. Whether, having been an Instrument to draw so many together into this way,
it be not rather his Duty to continue with them, applying himself in all ways of
Love and Forbearance to enlarge their Spirits, which he judges his Duty, because
he finds a sensible ease in his Soul, upon such Resolutions and Applications?
5. Inasmuch as he stands an Elder over them, and is weakened in his Confidence
against Infant Baptism (which they are so confident against) and also cannot
baptize Believers otherwise than to satisfy their Scruple of Conscience that
shall desire it out of doubt of the Defect is in their Infant Baptism, and with
Cautioning of such to take heed of their taking it up so as to denominate their
Christianity, Saint-ship, or Church-ship thereby; if any Party of the Congregation
cannot bare him thus, but should separate, and so want means of Edification,
or, as some say, rather be Quakers than so indifferent, or as one of them
says, he would join with the Church of
Rome,
if he thought that true which
Mr.
Lamb
says, namely, That he may have Communion with Persons not so
baptized; whether considering their Danger he ought not hide, or cease to desist
on his Sense, or what he ought to do?
6. Considering his present Temptatious and Assaults to his Faith and Sense of
God's Love, it be his present Work to study to be settled in a full Persuasion one
way or other about Baptism: But to mind his spiritual Defense against these Violent
Assaults, which makes him say,
O that he were in his late confidence again,
and
so is resolved to study the Arguments that are against Infant Baptism: And he is
directed to
your Twenty Arguments in the Book about right to Sacraments, about the
necessity of Faith to interest in Baptism.
Now, sweet Mr.
Baxter,
shall I have so much Grace in your Sight, as to have
your distinct Answer to these Particulars; truly, it will be Service to Jesus Christ,
whom we have desired to serve in all singleness of Heart from our Youth up, and
have no desire in this World like to this, to know his Will and do it, whose Love
and the Light of whose Countenance, is better than Life to our Souls, having
no Design but to serve our Lord upon the best Terms, who hath dealt bountifully
with us, whose Mercy and Faithfulness we have often experienced.
I trust it is of God that put it into my Heart to write to you, and I will wait
that the Son of Righteousness may shine through you, a Star in his Right Hand,
to our Guidance in this Night of our Temptation. I acquaint none that I do it,
were it known, it might occasion me some
farther Trials: Therefore I entreat your
Secrecy in it.
My Husband hath indeed sometimes said, he would write to you:
but hath said again, Mr.
Baxter
will not regard me; and indeed he hath scarce
freedom of Mind to any Business, he should take a Journey to
Worcester,
which
if he do, he says he will come to you: I do not acquaint him with this, but your
Advice I know I shall be able to help him by. Now our Lord Jesus Christ, who
still giveth Gifts to Men, and doth continue Means in his Church, sufficient to
the help of all his poor Servants, be your Helper to us ward, with craving Pardon
for my great Boldness, I take leave, and remain
YOURS
in our Lord Jesus,
Barbara Lamb.
London,
in
Great St. Bartholomews,
this 12th of August, 1658.
I have enclosed sent a Copy of the mentioned Arguments, which pray peruse, and keep
private.
Sir, I desire what you write in answer to me may be enclosed in a Cover, to Mr.
James
Marshal
in
Friday-Street
at the
Half Moon,
who is my Son in Law, and so I shall
have it with privacy. I shall long to know that these come safe to your Hands.
For Mr.
Rich. Baxter,
Minister of the Gospel in
Kidderminster.
These present.
HOW true did I feel it in the reading of your Husband's Lines and yours
which you say in the beginning, that unacquaintedness with the Face is no
hindrance to the Communion of the Saints: So much of Christ and his Spirit
appeared to me in both your Writings, that my Soul in the reading of them
was drawn out into a strong a Stream of Love, and closing Unity of Spirit, as
almost ever I felt it my Life. There is a Connaturality of Spirit in the Saints
that will work by Sympathy, and by closing uniting Inclinations, through greater
Differences and Impediments than the external Act of Baptism: As a Load-stone
will exercise its attractive Force through a Stone Wall. I have an inward Sense
in my Soul, that told me so feelingly in the reading of your Lines, that your
Husband, and you, and I are one in our dear Lord, that if all the self-conceited
Dividers in the World should contradict it on the account of Baptism, I could not
believe them.
About a Year ago Sir
Henry Herbert
gave me one of your Husband's Books
about Baptism, which when I had read, I told him that the Author and I were
one in Love, though not of one Opinion, and that he wrote in the most savory,
honest, moderate Style of any of that Mind that ever I read. But truly the perusal
of these Arguments persuade me yet to higher Thoughts of him, much more
may be said than he hath said in that great and weighty Case; but yet
I have met with none that hath said so much in so small a room. It delighteth
me to feel the workings of a Catholic Spirit in his Lines. Nothing hath more
undone us (except flat Ungodlyness) than the loss of Catholic Principles and
Affections among Christians; (few are more void of them than the Papists that
boast of them:) It must be this loving a Christian as a Christian that must hold
when all is done: He that loveth Christ in Christians, will love all Christians
where Christ appears. Should not Dividers fear least Christ say to them that castoff
most of his Holy Members for this Opinion sake,
Ye did it unto me?
Is Christ in these
Saints, or his he not? What! a Saint, and Christ not in him! that cannot be:
And is he in them, and shall he be used so unkindly, so uncharitably, as to be
cast by? Oh dear Mrs.
Lamb,
the Lamb of God hath reconciled greater Differences,
and closed greater Differences than these: and his tender Bowels yearn
over those that we sullenly reject. He that said to his sluggish Followers
[The Spirit
is willing, but the Flesh is weak;]
and that sent so kind a Message to
Peter
(that
lately denied him) as soon as he was risen, and that still shown such matchless
Compassions to the weak, will give little Thanks to dividing Spirits that cast
out his poor Servants whom he himself doth not cast out. I know not Mr.
Lamb
by Face, but Mr.
Allen
I know; could he find in his Heart to deny me Brotherly
Communion if I desired it of him, and protested that I would be of his Opinion
and Practice if I durst, and my contradicting Judgment did not hinder me: I
have told the Pastors of the Re-baptized Churches here, that if any of their Judgment
and Practice will satisfy themselves with being again Baptized, and will live
in peaceable Communion with us, they shall be as dear to us as any other; and
that if I were a Member of Mr.
Tombeis
Church, if he would permit me, I would
live obediently under his Ministry (allowing me the Liberty of my Conscience): I
hope God is working for our Unity and Peace. I have been long preaching of
the Unity of the Catholic Church, containing all true Christians as Members;
and the last Week save one, Mr.
Tombes
came to the Re-baptized Church at
Bewdley,
and preached on the same Subbject, and so excellently well (as I hear) for
Unity among all true Christians, to the same purpose with your Husband's Arguments,
that I much rejoiced to hear of it (though I hear some of his People were
offended). And now that this should be seconded with your Husband's peaceable
Arguments, puts me in some Hopes of a little more healing. I have strong Hopes
that if I were in
London
I should persuade such as your Husband, and Mr.
John
Goodwin,
and many an honest Presbyterian Minister (as great a distance as seems
to be between them all) to come yet together, and live in Holy Communion.
But be sure God will drive us together before he hath done with us: Living Members
will smart by distance, and be impatient till the Wound be closed, what a
Damp is upon the Spirits of those Christians that can separate (interpretatively)
from a thousand parts (to one) of the Church of Christ. The Papists would desire
no better sport (nor the Infidels neither) than to reduce the Church of Christ
to the
Antipaede
Baptists, or the baptized at Age, and so to deny him to have had
any visible Church in the World (that we can prove) for so many Years: Would
they have held Communion with the Catholic Church for a thousand Years together,
or would they not (if they had lived in those times)? If they would, then
why not with us also that are of the same Judgment? Was it a Duty then, and is it
unlawful now? or are they Respecters of Persons? If they would not in all those
Ages have held Communion with the visible Church, what would they have done
but separated from the Body, and so from the Head, and cast off Christ in all his
Members, and taken him to be a Head without a Body, which is no head, and
so no Christ, what would they have done but denied his Power, and Love, and
Truth, and consequently his Redemption, and his Office? Hath he come at the
end of Four Thousand Years (since the Creation) to redeem the World that lay so
long in Darkness, and hath he made such wonderful Preparations for his Church
by his Life and Miracles, and Blood and Spirit,
&c.
and promised that
the Gates
of Hell shall not prevail against it,
and that
his Kingdom shall be an Everlasting Kingdom,
and his Dominion endureth from Generation to Generation:
and yet after all this
shall he have a Church (even as the Seekers say) but for an Age or two: For
doubtless (though' where Heathens were the Neighbors of the Church, many were
baptized at Age, yet) no Man can name or prove a Society (or I think a Person)
against infant Baptism for One Thousand Two Hundred Years at least, if not One
Thousand Four Hundred: And for many Ages no other ordinarily baptized but
Infants. If Christ had no Church, then where was his Wisdom, his Love, and
his Power? What was become of the Glory of his Redemption, and his Catholic
Church, that was to continue to the End? That Man that can believe that
Christ had no Church for so long time, or any one Age since his Ascension, must
turn an Infidel and deny him to be Christ, if he be a rational Man. Did all the
Gospel Precepts of Love and Holy Communion cease, as soon as Infant Baptism
prevailed? doubtless (though it be be his Ordinance) Christ never laid so great
a stress on the outward Washing as Dividers do. Whenever Baptism is mentioned
in Scripture, it means [The Engagement of the Person to Jesus Christ
by solemn Covenant, which Washing is appointed to Solemnize] and 1
Cor.
12.
13. doth plainly mean [That one Holy Spirit, which is usually given to the Baptized,
either in or near their outward Baptism, doth inwardly animate all the Body,
and unite them and assimilate them and prove them Members].
Constantine
the Great was the Glory of the Church in his Generation, maintaining Holiness
and Peace, when the Pastors were some Corrupters, and some Dividers, and
would have broken all in Pieces but for him: He ordinarily Preached, (or made
Holy Prayers and Speeches in Meetings) and yet was never baptized all this while
till near Death, and none ever scrupuled his Communion. I would know of the
Dividers why they should think Baptism more necessary to be believed than the
other Sacrament, the Supper of the Lord: Yet it is certain that all the ancient
Church did purposely conceal the Lord's Supper from the Knowledge of the
Catechumens; by which it appears they judged not the Belief of it essential to
a Church Member: Yet I know the great thing meant by the Word Baptism in
Scripture is essential to the Church-Membership of the Adult; that is, the giving
up ourselves to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in Covenant; but the Sign
is only necessary as a Duty, but not as a means without which the thing cannot be
had. This is voluminously proved against the Papists, with whom the contrary
minded do comply. Circumcision in the Wilderness was separated from Church-Membership
and Communion. And is the outward part of Baptism more necessary
under the Gospel, which setteth less by Externals, and where God that is a
Spirit will
be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth:
and where
neither Circumcision nor Un-Uncircumcision
availeth anything, but a new Creature, and Faith that worketh by
Love.
But our main Argument against them is, That no true Definition can be given
of Baptism that will not agree with Infant-Baptism, if it were granted to be unlawful,
were it proved an unmeet Age, it will never prove the Baptism null. But
I do but go besides your Expectation, I suppose in all this; which is occasioned
by your Husbands Paper and the main Cause. I shall therefore come at last to
your Case.
But will Mr.
Lamb
regard the Judgment of one that differeth from him as I
do? You know according to my Judgment what I must advise him to: but though
still it is my Judgment that Infants of Believers should be solemnly given up to
Christ by Baptism; yet I shall deal as impartially as I can, and put myself in
Mr.
L
's Case, and supposing I were of his Opinion against Infant-Baptism. I shall
answer your particular Questions. To the two first I answer: 1. We have a sure
Word to fly to for Direction, and many great and evident Principles (as here the
Nature of the Catholic Church,
&c.
) to give us Light in the darker Points that
depend upon them: and in such a Case it is dangerous gathering our Informations
about Truth or Duty, or Sin from dark and doubtful Providences, which are
not our Rule, but only some Effects of the Will of God, that as to Events are
clear, but as to Truth and Duty can tell us nothing or very little, but in full Subordination
to our Rule, from which they must receive their Light. And of all
Providences few are darker than Motions and Troubles from our own Thoughts,
so many, and secret, and powerful Causes are there within us, and about us of
Misapprehensions and misled Passions, that its very dangerous boldly to Judge of
the Mind of God by our own disturbed Minds; when it is our Duty to judge our
own Minds by God's, and God's Mind by his Word; his particular Providences
being mostly but to help the Word in working in a Subordination to it. 2. I
cannot be sure that know him not, but I suspect by the Narrative, that this is
Mr.
L.
's Case; 1. His Heart being upright in what he had before done, God in
Mercy gave into his Mind, that Light concerning Catholicism and Brotherly
Love, and other Truths contained in his Papers, which tended to his Satisfaction
and Recovery. 2. Upon the sight of this much Truth, it must needs raise some
Trouble in his Mind, that he had acted contrarily before, and yet the Words of
the contrary Minded holding him in suspense, and unresolved about his future
Practice, at least, increased his Trouble (an unresolved Mind in great Matters
being a Burden to itself). 3. And the terrible Threats and hard Prognostics
of these Dissenters and their Censures of him, might yet sink deeper. For it is the
way of some to fall upon our Passions instead of our Judgments, and stir up
Fears in us, instead of convincing us. As the Papists win abundance by telling
them, that no others can be saved (as if we should be frightened to the Party that
will be most uncharitable, when Charity is the Christians Badge). So I doubt
too many do, that we have now to speak of. 4. The Apprehension of his Peoples
Discontent, and some bad Consequents to them and himself, that he Apprehended
would follow his Return, did yet make the disturbance more. 5. The
long and serious Study of the Matter with much Intention, might yet go farther.
6. And by all these means, I conjecture he is somewhat surprised with Melancholy.
7. And then (if that prove so) its very hard to gather the Mind of God from
his Disturbances; for they will follow the Impresses on his own disturbed Mind.
But all these are but my distant Conjectures from what you write. But to come
nearer.
3. Whether he have contracted any Melancholy or no, this is my Judgment
of the Causes of his Changes. 1. God caused his Light and Convictions in much
Mercy, that's evident by the Conformity of his Assertions here to the Word of
God, and the Principles of Christianity. 2. Satan envied him and others the
Mercy that was given in: and therefore I verily think he is the cause of his Horrors
and Troubles, when he thinks of returning to Unity with others, and wholly
withdrawing himself from the Schism: My Reasons are, 1. Because I know
that the Work is of God, and
Ergo,
who but Satan should be against it. 2. Because
that Troubling, and Terrifying, and Disturbing the Passions is usually his
Work; especially when it is against God's Light. God worketh by Light, and
drawing the Heart to Truth and Goodness: But Satan usually worketh by stirring
in the Passions to muddy the Judgment. 3. Common Experience tells us,
That it is his ordinary way, where once he hath got Power, to give quiet in Sin,
and to trouble and terrify upon Thoughts of Recovery.
Quest.
But how should
he have such Power with a Servant of God? This leadeth me more particularly
to answer your first Question. God frequently giveth him such Power over his
own Servants, 1. When the Service we are upon is a recovering Work, which implieth
our former Guilt. It was no small Sin (though ignorantly committed by
an honest Heart) for Mr.
L.
to separate and draw so many with him, and put so
much Credit and Countenance upon a Cause, that hath made such sad and miserable
work among the Saints: O! What Churches might we have had by this
time in
England,
if the Enemy had not made use of our dividing Friends to his
Advantage, and to do his Work.
Now you must not marvel if the Accuser and Executioner have some Power given
him to be a Vexation to a Godly Man after such Guilt. And indeed so few
look back that fall into Divisions, that Mr.
L.
should not grudge at a little Perplexity
that meets him in the way of so great a Mercy. An ingenuous Mind would
not come out of so great a Sin without some moderate Trouble for it (and
for it,
it is meritoriously, and should be intentionally). 2. Especially if Melancholy give
him advantage, Satan (that commonly worketh by that means and Instrument)
may do Wonders. 3. And I shall tell you of some other ends in the conclusion,
that I conjecture at.
To your Second Question I say, it seems to me, as is said, a hard thing; yea,
impossible to judge of his Cause by these his Passions: But it's most probable by
far, that this Distress of Spirit is for his former Sin in separating (to say nothing
of Re-baptizing) and that it is also a gracious Providence for some further Good,
that yet he knows not of.
To the Third Question I answer, I know not the State of Mr.
Goodwin
's Church,
and
Ergo,
can say nothing to it, whether he should return thither: But my Judgment
is 1. That he should in Prudence a little forbear deserting his separated
Church for the ends in the Conclusion mentioned. 2. That when he removeth
he should preach the Gospel on the Terms in the end. 3. That if he must be a
private Member, he should rather go to Mr.
Goodwin
's Church than another, if it
be rightly constituted, (because he thence removed): But if it be disorderly gathered
out of many Parishes without Necessity, were I in his case I would rather
join with another Church, and that in the Parish where he lives, if there be a
Church that is fit to be joined with; if not, I would remove my Dwelling to the
Parish that I would join with: Cohabitation is the Aptitude requisite to Church-Membership.
To Your Question, Why his Conscience feels not this Duty:
I know not, unless providence mean, as I shall speak anon. But I marvel if he feels
not the Sin of his Separation.
To your Fourth, I answer: Having drawn so many into a Schism, it is his great
unquestionable Duty to do all that he can to get them out of it: and if he cannot,
to leave them, and partake no longer in their Sins; yea, and do more than
this for his Recovery and theirs.
To your Fifth Question: It is answered in the former; he ought openly to
disown the Sin of Separation.
To the Sixth: If he be Melancholy, let him forbear Studies; if not, he should
impartially search after the Truth by Study, but with Patience, not setting God a
time for his Resolution. As for my Twenty Arguments, which you say he is referred
to, I partly considered what they made for, before I set them down. They
prove a Necessity of Profession of Consent in all adult Covenanters: But yet Parents
may profess their Consent to their Children's Covenanting or Engagement:
The Parents are the Believers and the Consenters, and
Ergo,
must be the Professors.
They have Power of devoting, and giving up, and engaging their Children
to God. I would Mr.
L.
could tell me
[When the Privilege and Duty of Parents
entering their Children into the Holy Covenant with God, and solemnizing this did cease?
Let him answer me but that one Question well, and prove it, and I will be of his
mind (but this is besides my Intent): It will not prove that Infants are not saved,
because it is said so oft, That
he that believeth shall not perish: and he that believeth
not, is condemned already, and shall be damned,
&c. No more will it prove that Infants
that profess not, and believe not, may not be entered by professing Parents
into Covenant with God, (as undoubtedly till Christ's Time they were) because
Profession is necessary to the adult. As the Parents Will disposeth of them (for
their good) so the Parents Profession is enough. But I come to my Conclusion.
I am no Prophet; but I hope God hath given Mr.
L.
his Light and his Trials,
yet for higher ends; and suffered him to delay his Relinquishment of the Schism,
that he may be more serviceable to the Church, in helping to heal the common
Breach. To which End I make this Motion to him, and tell him from me, I
think it is of God, and will produce his Comfort.
1. If he desire it, I will presently send him a Model of Agreement between the
Churches of the Poedobaptists and Anabaptists (as commonly called) in order to their
charitable brotherly Communion, and the preservation of the common Truth, that it
suffer not by our Divisions: This he and I will subscribe to, and then I doubt not
to get Mr.
Tombes
to subscribe it; and next I will get all our Association to subscribe
it; and next let Mr.
T.
and he get what other of the Re-baptized to subscribe
it that will. If none but he and I do it, we will publish it, and shame the World
into a Peace, or do our Parts. And methinks I foresee great Benefits that will ensue
(more than this Paper will hold to enumerate). 2. When this Agreement is
Published, Mr.
L.
shall also Publish his Arguments, and I my Reasons for our Agreement.
3. When this is done, let Mr.
L.
become the Pastor of a Church that's
mixed of the Baptized and Re-baptized, if it may be; if not, at least a Public
Preacher in a convenient Station: For I see that Light in his Argumentation, that
he may not hide, and that God will never Suffer him to cast off and go against
but at his Peril (which I cannot fear). Dear Mrs.
L.
receiving your Letter near
Bed-time on
Saturday
Night, I thought it no Sin to make it part of this Lord's
Day's Work to return you this Answer, which I desire you to accept from (and
pray for)
Your Brother,
in the Covenant
and Spirit of Christ,
Rich. Baxter.
Aug. 22. 1658.
If Mr.
L.
look into my Book for Infant Baptism, let him know that I much repent of the
harsh Language in it, but not of the main matter.
London, the 16th of Sept. 1658.
Honoured Sir,
I Perceive my Wife hath, unknown to me, sent you my Papers touching Free
Communion with all Saints, which God knoweth my Heart and Soul is in;
and since the Matter is so well received by you, as appeareth by your kind answer,
and my own particular Case so affectionately tendered by you, I am encouraged
to further Converse, and indeed do welcome your Overtures of a loving
Correspondency with many Thanks both to God and yourself: 'It is a rare thing
to find Men of Parts, Learning, and great Abilities, clothed with Bowels of
Mercies, or Humbleness of Mind,
Psal.
113. 5, 6. The Prophet speaketh in the
Praise of the Almighty; That
though he was high, yet humbled himself to consider the
things on Earth;
yea, even the poor on the Dunghil sitting in Dust; God's
Heighth hindereth not him, but Men's doth them ordinarily, though not in it
self: Not as a Cause, but as an Occasion through the Corruption that is in the
Heart of the best. It may be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ whom
I have sought with Fasting, Prayers and Tears; hath appointed you to interpret
his wonderful dealing with me, and to show me my Uprightness. I mean what
he will account so. He that could do so, would be an Interpreter one of a Thousand
to me that walk in Darkness, and see little Light: O, that I knew the Mind
and Will of God in my difficult Case! happy should I be: I have this Comfort
in my Affliction, that my Will is perfectly subdued to God's: I would go his way
if I could tell where it lay: But alas! I cannot find it: I make my moan to the
Almighty, but he seemeth to carry it severely towards me, instead of making
straight Paths for my Feet: Upon my earnest Solicitations, he leaveth me in the
Hand of Tormenting Fears. That you may the better know what to say to me,
I shall as briefly as I can, tell you my case.
My Understanding being enlightened that all Saints, as Saints, ought to hold
Church Communion against what I have foolishly printed (for which I loath my
self, and abhor the Sight of it): I set myself to consider other Events that lead
me to that narrowness of Spirit, at last come to doubt whether God be pleased
with Re-baptizing, to the Rejection of Infants out of the Visible Church: But
am out of doubt in this, that to rebaptize any now, do denominate their visible
Saintship, or give right to Church Fellowship, and so to part them from all the
Believers in Christ not so Baptized as the World, as not of the visible Church of
God, is a most pernicious Error, and a great Evil; further, I found fault with
Popular Government in the Church, as it confounds the Definition of Governor
and Governed. Also that in the settled State of the Church, no Man ought to
take a Personal Charge but Persons both able, and wholly devoted to the Work.
That to be a Merchant and a Minister doth not agree, except in Cases of invincible
Necessity: That in the
Levitical
Order appointed by God, there is a moral
equity respecting the Ministers of the Gospel, both Separation to the Work, and
and Maintenance in it; and however People may Imagine, the contrary Principles
and Practices prove dishonorable to God, and destructive to Religion.
In the multitude of these Thoughts I began to conclude, that it was not possible
for me to hold my Relation to the People I now serve, and that God enlightened
me in these things on purpose to appear against them, and lead others out of them;
in this Confidence I grew bold, and began to preach something publicly that I
knew would turn the Congregation against me, and so prepare me for my Return
to Mr.
John Goodwin
's from whom I separated about Five Years ago: But the
Truth is, as I began to widen from the Church I relate to, my Soul sank into
deep Mire, where there was no standing, into a horrible Pit, the Arrows of the
Lord stuck fast in me, and his Hand pressed me sore, the Poison of them drunk
up my Spirit, and the Terrors of the Lord set themselves in array against me, instead
of the Smiles of Christ, and the comfortable Testimony of Conscience, as to
a service pleasing to God and the Lord Jesus Christ, I met with hellish Horrors,
Temptations to d
•
spair of God's Love to me, and much ado to keep my Head
above Water.
Whereupon I humbled myself under the mighty Hand of God, and stopped my
present Prosecutions of my Purposes, which was to have burnt my Books; to have
returned to Mr.
Goodwin's
again; to have provided my Papers with some Additions,
and a solemn Address to all the Churches under that Form: But meeting
with this wonderful Opposition from God, my Hand hangeth down, and my
Knee feeble, I am in an amaze, not knowing what to say, think, or do: But this
I have found, That as widening from the People I am with brought us great distress,
so joining with them again assuageth the Waters of my Affliction, upon
these Terms I stand not daring to stir from them, nor do anything to prejudice
my esteem with them: But yet not satisfied neither through Fear, least by going
on the way I am engaged in, I should countenance a By-way not pleasing to God.
And thus by degrees, I have opened to you the perfect State of my Case, but it
was because you would ask me what matter the Enemy (if it were the Enemy)
wrought on to make me so great Affliction upon it, one thing was some Thoughts
of Heart that I had had concerning my Children: That made it indeed a matter
desirable to me to be out of this way; but my Conscience telleth me the
Thoughts was lawful and good, and that they had not the least influence in the
change of my Judgment. Another thing is, the way we are in is a very narrow
way, and we have some Christians, my dear and intimate Friends, that walk in
it, that excel in holiness, and are gone somewhat farther out of the World with
their Hearts, through their Faith and Sense of future things than ordinarily Christians
go; these all frowned on me. And then 3. The way I should return to
was more open, and the Persons less sensible (Oh, Sir, there is abundance have
Knowledge, but there is but a few have a rich Sense) 4. I should leave the Poor,
and go among the Rich, that minded more the adorning of the outward Man
than the glorious Gospel of Christ ordinarily: whereas my Spirit is much set against
gay Apparel and following of Fashions; not but that Mr.
Goodwin
's Church is as
sober as most, I think as any, But the Truth is, it is a Sin in my Apprehension
at least) that few are sufficiently sensible of. 5. My Conscience telleth me, that
as for Parishes, there is no proceedings in Parishes that are worthy the Name of
Church-Proceedings ordinarily. There is indeed in some few an able Man to
Preach, and the People go to hear, but as for watching, visiting, and nourishing,
and such like faithful Proceedings for the Health of Souls, there are but few lay
any such things to Heart; so that the Parishes, for the most part, are but like a
dead Corps without Life. The living Stones are gone into one gathered Church or
other, but I confess, I do not find them blessed after. 6. Another thing was the
Danger that the Souls of our Friends would be in upon my leaving them. 7. The
making of thousands of Hearts sad, who have their Eyes upon me.
I perceive your Propositions at the end of your Letter, Alas for me, I shall be
fit for nothing, except God be pleased to heal my wounded Spirit; that is my
great Care for the present, how to behave myself to obtain the Light of his
Countenance. If God would go before me, and lead me, I would do anything,
the Joy of the Lord is our Strength; but however I thank God that enableth me
to hold out waiting; I am sure my Soul hungereth and thirsteth after Righteousness
more than all Riches, and therefore I am under the Promise of being filled at
last: I have indeed covered to serve God, and secretly plotted how to cast my Affairs,
so that I might be free for it, I have in order to the Devotion of my Soul
to the Word and Prayer, wholly taken myself off all Converse with the World,
and supposing I should not long stay where I am, I was considering where I might
be useful: At last I thought of going into some Country, with the leave of Mr.
Goodwin
's Church, where there was much People, and no means, and there to seat
myself, having a good Estate of my own, by which I could not only serve freely,
but do much good. This I thought would have been pleasing to God, I resolved
not to meddle with the Point of Baptism one way or other, but have striven the
Conversion of Souls to Jesus Christ: But his late Frowns on me maked me fear
he will take no delight in me: But however, since I call him Father, it is fit I
should say
Thy will be done;
even so Father let it be.
Amen, Amen.
If you would draw up such a Model of Agreement as you write of, I know
not how much it may conduce to the Glory of God: I believe some here would
subscribe it, I hope many: I propounded it to Mr.
Manton;
he said, he should
like such a thing very well.
The Lord preserve your Life, Health, and Strength, that you may live to do
God more Service; your Zeal provoketh many: I am fully persuaded, and, I
think, upon good Grounds, that had the Ministers taken the Course, that I hear
you take at
Kidderminster,
it had prevented Separation. The good Lord fill you
with his Holy Spirit, and enable you to do yet more abundantly. Dear Sir, I entreat
you to use your Interest in Heaven for me, that my Faith may be strengthened,
which the Enemy layeth at daily; to enlighten my Understanding; to give
me good knowledge and good Judgment; to deliver my Conscience from unnecessary
Scruples; to manifest his Love to me, and increase my Love to him; and,
if it be his Will, to use and comfort me in his Service, which he knoweth is Meat
and Drink to me, who am
Your affectionate Friend
and Brother in Christ Jesus,
Tho. Lamb.
I hope shortly to hear from you.
I Do return my many Thanks for your excellent Letter which I have received with the enclosed;
wishing I knew how to requite your Love, and answer that Favor I found
with you in your large Letter, which is not in vain to us-ward, but of much use; the
Lord requite your Labor of Love. I only redouble my Request for an Interest in your Prayers,
that God would deliver my dear Husband from all his Fears, and guide him by his Light;
our God will hear, who keepeth Covenant and Mercy forever with those that fear
him. I rest,
SIR,
Your Sister
and Lover in our Lord Jesus,
B. L.
Sept. 20. 1658.
For Mr.
Rich. Baxter,
Minister at
Kidderminster.
AS sure as Love is a Fruit of the Spirit, the Character of a Saint; yea, the
more excellent way, and as terminated on him whom we love in the Saints,
is the most high and noble Grace, as being the Beginning and End, the Spring of
all other Holy Affections and Actions, and the enjoining Act that's next our
End, so far is that State to you a growing State, in which you increase in Holy
Love, and so sure was that a declining State in which your Charity was straightened
and diminished: and as sure is that Doctrine of Christ that leadeth to an
universal Love of Saints; and that against Christ, which is against it. It is not
the least Grief of my own Soul, that in the eager Defense of that which still I
judge to be the Truth, I have done anything prejudicial to my own or Brethren's
Charity. Upon perusal I now find that many of my Speeches in my Book of Infant
Baptism have been too provoking, of which I heartily repent, though I dare
not of the Doctrine. The Frame of our Affections doth much advantage or
disadvantage our Judgments, and Experience is a help to both. This I perceive
you have found as well as I: All Holy Truths must be entertained with mixed Affections;
with Sorrow for anything that we have done against them; and with
Love, and Joy, and Gratitude to the bountiful Revealer of them. These that
you here enumerate; as revealed to you, are very weighty, because of such a practical
Nature, and public use; and
Ergo,
you must be true to them, and use
them accordingly: they are such as leave no room for Doubting, as bearing their
Testimony so legible in their Forehead: This being concluded that they are certain
Truths, it may much help you to judge of your following Troubles. I shall
reduce all that I have to say for Resolution to these Propositions. 1. The Word
of God, and not the Troubles of your own Spirit, is the standing Rule by which
you must judge of Duty and Sin: You cannot know either by your Troubles immediately,
but as they awaken or help you to understand that Word. 2. It is
Ergo,
most certain that none of your Troubles should in the least measure, move
you from the certain Truths, which by the Light of this Word hath been made
known to you. All the Troubles in the World will not alter Scripture, and make
Truth to be no Truth: You must not once offer to try Scripture Truths by your
Feelings, but your Feelings by these Truths. 3. You must therefore first see
whether you obey the Truth revealed to you; which plainly requireth you first
to manifest Repentance for so much breach of Truth or Unity, or Chrity as you
have seen yourself Guilty of. 2. And to be Guilty of the same no more. Now
whether you live in that Sin, or out of it, I leave to you to judge. And no doubt
but it is your Duty to do your utmost, to draw all those out of it, whom you
have encouraged in it, and as many more as you can. There are but these two
Questions then before you; What is the Cause of your Trouble? and how you
should dispose of yourself for the future. And to the first I answer in this fourth
Proposition: Though we know in general that Sin is the deserving Cause, and
God's Wisdom and Love the disposing Cause; yet it is not easy to find out the
particular Sins, nor the particular Design of Love: but the former is the more
easy by the help of Scripture, which showeth us our Sin more fully than God's
future intended Works. 5. But, as it is certain that no Providence is to be interpreted
against a Precept; so, as far as I can conjecture at this distance your Trouble is most
likely to arise from these connected Causes: 1. From some Melancholy that hath got
Advantage of your Head, by the Thoughtfulness, Perplexity, and the first actual Disquietments.
2. From Satan's Temptations working on this Advantage; but of the first
I am no competent Judge, because distant: But I strongly suspect it (by long
Experience in Multitudes of that Distemper, who few of them will believe that
they have it themselves). But of the second I am more confident: Satan cannot
trouble us when he will, but 1. When Sin hath procured him a Permission: and
2. When some Melancholy or Disquietments have given him an Advantage. I
have met with few Persons that ever fell into any Calamity by Sin, but Satan did
very much trouble them when they attempted the means of their Recovery. The
Disquietments and Horrors that seize upon most ungodly Persons, when they are
about coming home by Christ, may be from God principally, but from Satan as
the Instrument of his Wrath, and as permitted to try them. Whenever any
escape any notable Snare of Satan (in State or Fact) usually Satan roareth and rageth
to hinder them, if posible, till the escape is made, and then God meeteth
them with further Eight and Love:
Pharaoh
follows them into the Red Sea, and
God receives them, and puts a Song of Praise into their Mouths on the dry
Land.
But this first Question is not such as you need much to stick at: You may easily
see for what Sin its like you should have this Affliction; or if you could not (after
a faithful Search) get rid of all and sweep as clean as possibly you can, and then
you will remove that Sin with the rest. The resolving of the next Question is
your principal Business, which is, to know now where your Duty lieth for the
time to come: For when once you are settled in the way of Duty, Peace will return,
and the dark Face of your now disconsolate Soul be cleared up (unless any
deep Melancholy, or unusual Providence should continue your Trouble) and indeed
it is not very easy to see the way of your Duty to the end; but part of it is
very easy: 1. That you should obey the Light that God hath manifested to you,
and help to communicate Catholic Principles and Affections to all your People,
to the utmost of your Power, this is certain; and do all that you are able to cure
uncharitable dividing Principles or Dispositions. 2. That you may not live in a
Practice contrary to your Doctrine is as plain; and
Ergo,
may not be guilty of
continuing a divided Church; though you may prudently observe the fittest manner
and Season of your coming off: Therefore it seems to me your Duty, freely,
lovingly, compassionately to communicate your Reasons to your Auditors: if they
can prove them unsound, (which I am sure they cannot in the main) then yield
to them; if they cannot, then beg their Pardon for misguiding them, and beseech
them to return, not to any Sin against God, but to the Love of the Saints, and
the Unity of the universal Body of Christ, and the Communion of Brethren. 3.
To return to Mr.
I. Goodwin
's Church again, I dare not dissuade you or advise
you; but I would not do it if I lived in another Parish, where I could have Lawful
Communion; yea, or if I could live in such a Parish, I would not be a Member
of a Church gathered out of many Parishes, in such a Place as
London:
Co-habitation
is in Nature and Scripture Example, made the necessary Disposition of
the Materials of a Church. 4. My Thoughts still are, that you should Preach the
Gospel in some Congregation most suitable to you.
But I am very glad that you give me the Reasons of your Trouble; for it is a
sad kind of Work for you or another to plead against Troubles in the dark, which
a Man can give no Reason for. 1. Your First I need say nothing to: If you had
ever had a Temptation to thrust in a wrong Motive into a good Cause, it neither
proves the Cause bad, (else all our Preaching were too bad) or your Heart bad;
as you see your Sin, I hope you see your sufficient Remedy. 2. The Second is
carnal, to resist so great a Truth and Duty, lest good People be displeased; what!
are they your God? God must be enough for you, if ever you will have enough;
and it must satisfy you that he is pleased, if ever you will be satisfied. Tell those
Christians, you will not cease to Love them, by Loving more; nor cease any
due Communion with them, by having Communion with more: Keep in with
them by Love and Correspondency, even whether they will or no, even when
you have left their Separation. Do not reproach them when you leave them, but
enjoy the Good of their Communion still, as you have Opportunity. God's
House hath many Mansions; if your Friends think that their Closet is all the
House, convince them of their Mistake, and confine yourself to that Closet no longer
but yet renounce it not; it may be a part (though sinfully divided) though it
be not the whole. 3. The way that you are called to is God's High way: and
though the Churches have many in them that are dead, yet have they with them
as many living Members as yours, and many more, if these parts may be Witnesses:
I would not be a Member of that Church willingly that is composed of none
but not able Christians; though I most Love the best, and delight most in their
Fellowship, and wish that all were such, yet when I see a Church so gathered, I
easily find it is a wrong Constitution, and not according to the Mind of Christ.
I will never join with them that will have but one Form in Christ's School. I
would have the A B C there taught as well as the profoundest Mysteries. 'It is no
Sign of the Family of God to have no Children (what if I said Infants) in it, but
strong Men only: Nor of the Hospital of Christ to have none Sick; nor of his
Net to have no Fish, but Good; nor of his Field to have no Tares: Flesh and
Blood hath ticed me oft to Separation, for Ease; but its too easy a way to be of
God: I undergo another kind of Life; you are extremely mistaken if you think
that you are put on so much Duty and Self-denial, by many Degrees, among your
Hundred Professors, as we must undergo: Your Work is Idleness to ours; how
then is yours the straiter way? 4. For Riches and gay Apparel, you may help
to cure Excess where you find it: What! a Physician fly because his Patients are
Sick! O that we had no sorer Diseases to encounter, than fine Cloaths: If you
were with me, I could tell you quickly where to find Forty Families of humble,
godly Christians, that are as bare, and Poor as you would Wish, and need as
much as you can give them or procure them; that scarce lose a Day's Work by
Sickness, but the Church must maintain them. And I could send you to Sixty
Families that are as poor, and yet so Ignorant as more to need your spiritual Help.
When they have sat by me to be instructed in my Chamber, they sometimes leave
the Lice so plentiful that we are stored with them for a competent space of time.
Never keep in a Separated Church to avoid Riches and fine Cloaths, and for fear
lest you cannot meet with the Poor. I warrant you a Cure of that Melancholy
Fear in most places in
England.
5. The next is the great Block. 1. If you gather
out the choicest Members that should help the rest, and then complain of Parishes,
when you have mar'd them, you do not justly. 2. If you will not do
your Duty in a Parish, because some Ministers do not theirs, your excuse is frivolous.
3. If I durst have gathered a separated Church here, I could have had one large
and numerous enough, or such as would allow me ease; but I think Parish Work
the best. We here agree on these Four Heads, 1. To teach all: In which Work
in my Parish, I could find Work for Ten Ministers, if I could maintain them.
2. To admit none as adult Members, without a personal credible Profession of
Faith and Holiness (of which I refer you to my Treatise of Confirmation). 3.
To exercise Discipline with these. 4. To hold Communion of Churches by Associations
and Assemblies of the Officers: And I bless God, I find not my Parish
such a dead Body as you speak of. Among Eight Hundred Families, Six Hundred
Persons are Church-Members: I hope there is not very many of these without
such a Profession as giveth us good Hopes of their Sincerity; and none whose
Profession I am able any way to disprove, and this satisfieth me as God's Way; and
many (I hope Scores) there be of those that join not with us (on divers Accounts)
that I hope fear God: If you have Charity to judge that our Parishes have Christians,
you may have Charity to judge that they have Life, and some fit for Communion.
How tender is Christ of his weakest Members? and shall not I imitate
him? yea, shall I judge them that am so bad myself, and pluck them from his
Arms, that designeth it as his highest Honor, to be admired and glorified
in the freeness and fullness of his Grace and Love to the Unworthy. 6. Your Followers
Souls are by you endangered, while you leave them in their Sin; will it endanger
them to tell them of that Danger, and help them out? What! to lead
Men to Holy Love and Unity with the Catholic Church of Christ? such danger
will be but by Accident; as every necessary Duty hath its Danger. A loving,
melting Lamentation for that Violation of Charity, which your own, and their
Division hath been guilty of, is like to profit humble Souls that love the Truth:
and if they are such as will not endure the Doctrine of Love and Unity, what are
they better than our Parishes? 7. None will be sad for the Return of a Brother
to Unity or Love, but those that grieve for your Felicity, not knowing what they
do. You would not forbear a Return to God from any gross Sin, for fear of
grieving Men: Is not Schism a gross Sin? Are they not great that are directly
against Love and Unity, the Soul and Life of the Church of Christ? and were
you no whit partial, you would think that Twenty Hearts made glad at your Recovery,
for one that's made sad, should at least here leave the Ballance even. A
Publish'd Exhortation from you (such as it seems you intended) to draw your Party
to Unity and Communion with all true Christians, and dissuade them hereafter
from Censoriousness, opposition to the Ministry, and Separation upon the Account
of so difficult a Point, and so far from the Heart of the new Man, might
do more good than your overseeing that Church an Hundred Years, it is not a
Trifle to hold an Opinion that would warrant a Man to have denied, or separated
from the universal visible Church, for so many Hundred Years; even for almost
all the time of its Existence since Christ. I forbear sending you the Form of Concord
mentioned till you are readier for it, and shall desire it, as judging it useful,
and then, God willing, I shall send it. The Lord I hope will clear up to you his
Mind concerning the way in which he would have you walk, and in the way of
Duty give you the Peace, which you desire and expect. I rest
Your unworthy Brother,
Rich. Baxter.
To Mr.
Lamb.
Sept. 29. 1658.
London, the 15th of January, 1658.
Dear Sir,
THESE are to return you many Thanks for your two Letters, which
have been a very great Comfort to me in my Affliction and Warfare that I
am now engaged in. Sir, I thought good to be silent a while, and not to trouble
you with anymore Letters till I had some new thing to say to you: Now what
I have to say is reducible to Three Heads; 1. I would inform you what God
hath done for me since my last. 2. What I have done, I hope, in his Strength;
and that I may not doubt to say 'tis for him in the Point of Union. And 3. The
present Frame of my Spirit and State.
1. For God's dealing with me. Sir, after waiting on the Lord in his way, sighing
for Light, and panting after him for refreshing;
as the Heart panteth after the
Water Brook:
My Light hath
broke forth as the Morning:
It hath
rose in obscurity:
and
my Darkness became as the Noon Day.
I see by Experience, that though I am
dark, God is Light; and though I am poor, he is Rich; and I believe there is nothing
I
want, but Heaven is full of it. The right Notion of God's Universal Church,
and the Unity he would have amongst the Members; and indeed, the necessity
thereof upon the Penalty of infinite Dammage to the most excellent Body of
Christ is, that God hath blest me with the Sght of, and shewn me as in a Glass,
the Condition of all our Congregations that refuse Communion with other
Churches of Christ, standing off from the main body of the Church militant,
as Christ's Part of that Body, as Antichristian; and so refusing to give or take Influences
for their Comfort and Succor: It healeth the whole, but dreadfully endangereth
those small Parts so divided: Just as it would endanger a Troop or
Company that should stand off from the main Body of a great Army that hath a
potent Enemy engaged in the Field against them. By this Light I perceive our
Case, namely, that we are, as you say, guilty of Schism. The Light in this
Matter being clear to me, I now begin to be satisfied that the Lord hath visited me
from an high in Mercy, and that all my inward Oppositions, and outward too,
from my Friends, are of Satan to stop me in a blessed Work. I praise God I am
now helped to bear the Reproaches of my dear Friends that pour Contempt upon
me daily, as a most dreadful Apostate, a
Judas,
one that it had been good for never
to have been born; one, that though I were as the Signet on God's Right
Hand, I should be plucked from thence; others wishing they had followed me
to my Grave when they went with me to Baptism. But it stirreth me not much;
for though their Zeal for God and his Truth, and their Love to Christ and Holiness,
and Ability to suffer for Christ be more than mine, yet my Conscience telleth
me they are in an Error, and that I am sincere in all I do, not swayed by
carnal Considerations, in which I am so manifest to their Consciences, that they
are more troubled with me for that things sake. Oh, Sir, I admire how a Man
without the Brest-plate of Righteousness holdeth up his Head in such a Day: But
withal, I experience the Worth and Excellency thereof. By the Grace of God,
my Righteousness I will hold fast, and my Heart shall not reprove me all my Days:
My
conscience telleth me (which is my great Comfort) that I have not wickedly departed
from my God, that I would not break the least of his Laws willingly, to
gain a Thousand Worlds: That the Love I bear to my Savior, and his most excellent
Body, the Church, is the chief thing that inspireth me in all I do.
Now 2. Touching what I have done towards Union since I wrote last, it is as followeth:
1. I have been at Mr.
G.
's Congregation, from whom I departed, to acknowledge
my Sin in separating from them upon such silly Grounds, and have offered my
self to break bread with them if they pleased: But withal, told the whole Church,
that for two Reasons I could not come so close to them as heretofore, 1. because
of my Relation to the poor People I now serve, being not yet well lodged in
some safe Place. And 2. because of some Scruples in my Mind, whether Independency
did not infer Schism in the Church Universal: As that Independency
upon the narrow foot; I mean, that which divideth Communion with Saints, as
Saints doth, so my refusing Communion with them, made me guilty of Schism,
in respest of that particular, I do not doubt it, and our Anabaptists are their natural
Offspring. But how to determine my Duty, in respect of Mr.
Goodwin
's
Church, from whom I separated, and with whom I was for many Years joined,
I know not, considering their Principles are larger for Communion than others.
2. Amongst ourselves I have privately urged, to my Friends enlarging considerably.
3. I have myself with my Family frequented the public Lectures.
4. In the Strength of God taken Courage to preach to the Congregation the
Doctrine of the Church Universal, and its Unity, from 1
Cor.
12. 26. and from
thence to show them the Schismatical state wherein we are; which Sermons hath
brought the Anabaptists about my Ears from other Parts. Four or five of them
opposed me the last first day after my Sermon, and because of what I had preached
the Day before, half my own Congregation never came to hear me: Their
Hearts are quite gone from me: Not any of the Church cometh to see me, or
ask me any Question.
Now 3. and
Lastly,
As to the present frame of my Spirit and State it is thus.
As to the uniting Work I have in Hand, I thank God I am bold, and am waiting
on God, (upon whose Influences I live) to guide me in Thought, Word, and
Deed about it, but I have lately been sorely troubled with one Temptation:
What should I preach, or write anything for, concerning Religion? I cannot
endure To
•
ments for Christ if I should be tried
•
'tis not for such faint hearted
Creatures as I to meddle in such Work: Now the Conscience of this, that indeed
I am a poor Creature, weak both in Faith and Spirit, hath made way for this
Temptation to seize upon me, to the saddening of my Soul, and to the en
•
eebling
of me to so great a Degree, that for this two or three Days I have not been able
to do anything. As for my present State in respect of the Church, I am still
with them, and purpose, God willing, to Morrow to apply what I have preached
about Schism. The next
Wednesday
is appointed to debate things; our Friends
call in the Heads of other Churches to their Assistance, and I hear those from abroad
intend to stir up our Friends to cast me out of the Church, what the Issue will be
God knoweth, and what to do with myself afterwards I know not, I know I
shall be sorely beset by the Enemy; but my hope is in God, that he will not suffer
me to be tempted above that I am able, and that my merciful Redemer and
High Priest will be touched with the Feeling of my Infirmities, himself being
tempted, he knoweth how to succor those that are tempted.
Heb.
4. 16. saith,
Grace hath a Throne:
and 5. 20, 21. saith,
Grace reigneth:
Oh blessed be God!
1
Ephes.
saith,
he hath given him to be Head over all things to the Church;
not to govern
it only, but to influence it with all necessary Supplies, to
fill all in all.
He
supposed while we are here, we shall be in an indigent Condition divers ways:
but at that Throne where Grace Reigneth, there is Grace enough to supply all
our Wants. Therefore 1
John. Of his fullness we have all received Grace for
•
race.
and because such poor Creatures as I, sensible of much Unworthiness, are very
apt to doubt our Entertainment, and
fear where no fear is,
blessed Jesus calleth us
to come
boldly.
Sir,
when I shall have done my Work where I am, which I believe will be
shortly, I could be content to return to Mr.
Goodwin
's, if God would like it,
and that my Re-union with that Church would not hinder my main Work.
They have of their own accord made a Vote to receive me when my Spirit should
be free to return, and indeed always have manifested much Love to me; but the
Truth is, I am so clogged with Scruples about popular Government, and such like
things, that though to Will be present with me, to perform I find not. Mr.
Goodwin
never renounced his Ordination to take it from the People, and is for Free
Communion, and saith, will join in such a Uniting Draught as I hope you will
now draw up and prosecute presently, and which I will labor in, God willing, to
promote when it cometh here: That which mainly sticketh with me in respect of
returning to Mr.
Goodwin
's is, that when I shall publish what is in my Heart about
the Causes of the Churches Malady in
England,
I shall reflect upon the Independant
Principles exceedingly. Now my fear is, that my Relation to them, will be
a Curb to me. I know not what to do, but my Eye is up towards God. I am
sure I have reaped Benefit by your Counsel, and hope I have had an Interest in
your Prayers, which I still beg, being confident God will hear you.
Sir,
the
Lord preserve your Life and bless your Labors. I hope it will not be long e're I
shall hear from you, who am
Your affectionate Friend
and Brother in Christ Jesus
Tho. Lamb.
From my House in
Great St.
Bartholomews.
My Wife presents her Love, with many Thanks to you.
To his very worthy Friend, Mr.
R. Baxter,
Preacher of God's Word at
Kidderminster
in
Worcestershire.
IF I understand anything of the Ways of the Love of God, and can perceive by the Effects
below, what Souls the Light of his Countenance doth shine upon, you owe much to
his Love, and are used by him as he useth the dearest of his own; what a Mercy is his Illumination?
and how much greater his quickening Life, that possesseth you with Love to
God and Man? O did we but know when we feel one Spark of Love to God and his Servants
in our Souls, from what an infinite Love it comes, and to what it tends, and what
it signifieth, surely there would be more studying comparatively, for Charity that edifieth,
than for the Knowledge that puffeth up. If your Work for God did cost you nothing, it would
not be so comfortable to you symptomatically or effectively.
Though I confess it is harder to bear the Censures of Godly Men than of the World, yet the
•
iger the Trial, the fuller will be the Evidence of Sincerity in Submission, and the greater
that Grace and Peace that is used to be given in for Encouragement or Reward. And yet
I must tell you, that your Trial here is not of the greatest, when your Recovery is like to
procure you the Esteem of Ten, if not an Hundred of God's Servants, for one that you are
like to lose; and I am glad that you give your Censurers so good a Description: for if they
are such as you describe them, I am persuaded many of them will come after you in time.
And is it not a great Encouragement to you, that your Brother and Fellow-laborer comes
over with you, and so your Hands are strengthened, and half your Opposition taken off and
turned into Comfort. For though I never told him of your Letters to me, nor you of his,
yet I take it for granted that you know each others Minds and ways; and yet you know
that he is satisfied and resolved for Catholic Communion. I pray you go together, and do
what you do as one Man, while you have one Mind and Heart. I perceive the Signs of
Judgment and Charity also in him. I beseech you also both to hold on your Charity, even
to them that are offended with you; so far as Christ appeareth in them, let them have your
special Love. The Despondencies you mention are unreasonable: Will you conclude you cannot
suffer, before you are called to Suffering? Deny the Baits of fleshly Pleasure, vain Glory
and worldly Gain, and live sincerely to God in your Prosperity, and I dare say, you may
boldly expect his confirming sustaining Grace if he call you to Adversity. I had almost said,
that (with most Men) it requireth greater Grace to overcome the Temptations of Prosperity,
and to contemn a flattering World for Christ, than to die for him. At least the one will
prove you possessed with his Spirit, and an Heir of Promise, as well as the other: And
therefore the Spirit and Promise that enable you now to live to God, would enable you to
die for him if he required it. Look you to your present Work, and trust God for Strength
for what he calls you to. If my Advice be worth your regard, it's this; 1. That you do
as you have done; offer Communion to other Churches, but forbear yet a while to join your
self as a Member to any. 2. That if you like the Proposals I shall send, and Mr.
Goodwin
like them, you both, with him, do signify so much, and I will take some course that
they may be the Introduction to a more general Agreement. 3. And that at the time when
we publish such Agreement, you and your Fellow-laborer join in publishing your Reasons
for Catholic Communion: For, I thank him, he hath communicated his and yours set together,
will give much Evidence in the Cause. But I must a little while crave your Patience,
before I send my Papers, by reason of a Crowd of pressing Businesses: But the Sweetness
of the work will draw me from all willful Delays (Your Brother also I perceive is not yet
ready for my Proposals). I rest
Your unworthy Fellow Servant,
Rich. Baxter.
To Mr.
Lamb.
Jan. 22. 1658.
Numb. IV. Letters and Papers between
Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Allen.
I Bless the Lord for the great Consolation I had in the perusal of your Papers: All the Motions
and Operations of Holy Love are lovely. That is the way of God: hat is the way
of Love, and that to be much suspected that quencheth it. What is so much predicated
through all the Gospel? Above all other ways, what a mellow sweetness doth the way of
Love communicate to all the Duties and Conversings of those that are abounding in this
Grace? And it is the Manhood and Maturity of Christianity. The Infancy of the Law
had less of it than the full Age of the Gospel: And young Christians usually are like young
Fruit, austere and unpleasant, whom Age and Holy Experience must mellow by the growth
of Love, produced by the Sun-shine of Heavenly Love. I had thought to have presently returned
you my Answer to your Reasons about Infant Baptism: but when I had read your other
Papers, I could not find in my Heart, least Disputing should in any Measure abate in the
Love that God was kindling: Yet shortly, (if I can find the least leisure) I shall give you
a few Words to them (if God will) when that which hath a show of contending will be more
seasonable. Your Arguments for Communion are very weighty. My next Work to these Ends
shall be to persuade some godly Ministers that differ from you, to a more charitable Judgment,
and walking towards them of your Opinion; and (if I live so long) to persuade our Parliament
Men against excessive Rigour and Bitterness against them. Do you do the like with
those of your way. If Love reign in us, it must command our Tongues to plead its Cause,
and to endeavor the promoting of it in the World. And when Love shall Reign among the
Nations, the Lord shall Reign in a way of Love: And this is the way to those glorious
Times that some expect by other Ways. And as the abounding of Iniquity and the cooling of
Love are coupled by Christ as Cause and Effect, so will the abounding of Love, and the
decay of Iniquity be conjoined. The God of Love carry on this blessed Work in our frozen
Souls, and in all the Churches, by keeping us under the Light of his Countenance, and the
the Sunshine of his most glorious Love. I remain
Your Brother,
Rich. Baxter.
To Mr.
William Allen.
Jan. 7. 1658.
The Case of Separation.
Quest.
1. WHether Particular Churches be of Divine Institution?
Answ.
Yea; that is Christians associated for Personal Communion
in Doctrine, Worship and Discipline, under the same Pastors (one or more) are a
Church of Divine Institution. Proved
Act. 14. 23. Titus 1. 5. 1 Tim.—Phil. 1.
1, 2. 1 Thes.
5. 16, 17.
Heb.
15. 17. 24. and many other Texts.
Quest.
2. Whether the Parish Assemblies are such?
Answ.
Parish-Assemblies are not of one sort; some are not such, that is, Parish
Assemblies which deny the Essentials of Christianity, and are Heretics, or deny
Church Essentials, or that have no Pastors, or such as want some Essentials of the
Office, as visible to Man's Judgment.
But Parish Assemblies are true particular Churches, who profess the Essentials of
Christianity, and of Churches, and have Pastors who visibly want not anything
essential to their Office (though otherwise faulty). 2. Churches are called
true, 1. In point of Essence (as aforesaid). 2. In point of Soundness and Integrity
(as a sick Man, or a maimed Man, or a Thief, is a true Man in Essence; but
not in Soundness, in Integrity and Honesty).
The Parish Churches, as constituted by our Laws, Articles, Ordination and Canons,
are true Churches as to Essence; but not without some Wants and Diseases
that need a cure.
3. Churches may be called
True,
1. In their Constitutions: Or, 2. In their Administration.
Ours in
England,
as afore described, are true in their Constitution:
But in the Administration some are excellent, some are laudable, some are tolerable,
and perhaps some have Ministers intolerable; as the Parsons differ.
4. The Society called the Church of
England
hath Pastors of several Minds; most
I hope, hold all that is Essential to Christianity, Ministry and Communion: But
some late Innovators and Corruptors, seem to deny somewhat Essential to particular
Churches and Ministry; but these impeach no Men's Ministry but their own;
against these I wrote in my Treaties of Episcopacy.
5. Distinguish between the Office as instituted by Christ, and owned by the
Church of
England,
and the Exercise of the Office, as restrained and hindered by
Canons and by Laws, the Parish Ministers and Churches are true Ministers and
Churches as described by Ordination, and the Church Doctrine, but many Canons
and some Laws dolefully fetter them, and hinder the Exercise of their Office on
pretence of governing them; but neither do nor can destroy the Essence of the
Office itself: The Ministers have all essential Qualifications and the Consent of
the People (though not the first Choice) and the People are professed Christians.
6. A Parish and a Parish-Church are not the same, all are not of the Church
that are in the Parish; there are three sorts of the Parish, 1. Communicants, and
those are the Church. 2. Meer Hearers and Catechical Persons, and these are
Candidates. 3. Aliens, Atheists, Infidels and Papists, Heretics, Men of no
Church or other Churches; Parish-Churches as combined parts of a Christian
Kingdom, or National Church thus distinguished from Aliens, Auditors, and not
only tolerated, but orderly combined, maintained, encouraged, are the most regular
Churches agreeable to Scripture, Reason, and Antiquity.
Quest.
3. Suppose the Parish-Churches should be no true Churches, is it destructive to particular
Churches to join with the Parish-Assemblies?
Answ.
No; who can dream that Families, and Neighbors, and occasional Meetings
may not Worship God; or, that such Worship destroys Churches. Did
Cor
•
lius
's
Meeting,
Acts
18. or those
Acts
12. 12. or these that
Acts
20. prayed at an
Oratory, nor the Water destroy the Church? 2. Occasion Communicants are not
bound to try the Call of the Ministers where they come, and have no Vote but to
take them according to visible Profession and Possession, and if the Ministers should
prove uncalled, the Loss would be to themselves, and not to the Faithful that are
blameless and have right to the Children's Bread, though a
Judas
or a Pharisee distribute
it.
But the Separatists Object, that pretended Churches which are not true, are
worse than occasional Assemblies that pretend it not.
Answ.
1. whether they are
worse or better, is nothing to this Question of destroying Churches. 2. The liker
they are to true Churches, the liker they are to be better than those that are
unlike them. 3. The Officiating of a true Minister may make that a true temporary
Church, which is not a constant settled Church. 4. It is far liker that many
separating Congregations will prove no true lawful Churches, for want of true Ministers,
and other Causes; and yet it will not follow that all that join with them
destroy true Churches; for some under Government may do it blamelessly; and
they that do it sinfully may yet own true Churches, every Sin destroys not other
Churches. 5. It is a Duty for Members of a Church to get what good they can
by all Christians, whether they be regular Churches or not.
Quest.
4. Suppose the Parish-Assemblies to be particular Churches, are the Corruptions in
them so great as that we must separate from them, or would it not be Schism so to do?
Answ.
There are many sorts of Separation: It is Schism to call them (no true
Churches of Christ) or (such as it is not lawful to hold Communion with) and to
separate on that account, and this I have oft proved in Print so fully, that I must
not now repeat it.
But there are many Occasions which may warrant and necessitate a mere local
Separation, as I have fully proved in many Treatises; as if any Sin be imposed
and Communion denied to those that will not Sin, those Men do not separate, but
are driven out by Separatists or Tyrants, and must not give over all Church Worship
of God because Tyrants forbid it them. Many other Instances of lawful local Separation,
I have published, which I cannot find any have confuted, no, nor denied.
Quest.
5. Whether there are not in congregational Churches such things which are not
plainly instituted in Scripture?
Answ. Congregational
is a sorry Word as here used in distinction from Parish-Churches,
Parish-Churches are Congregational, they consist of Pastors and Christian
Communicants joined for Personal Communion, and
Independents
and
Separatists
much differ, many Independents are against Separation, the old Nonconformists,
both Presbyterians and Independents were judged the Parish-Churches that had
tolerable Ministers to be true Churches; and Independents greatly differ among
themselves; some are sound in the Faith, and some are unfound; some are for Infant
Church-Membership and Covenant Grace, and some against it; some are for
self-made Covenants and Terms of Church-entrance and Communion, and for the
Peoples Power of the Keys, and against Ordination and many other Errors; which
others do renounce. And remember it is one thing to be Independents by Agreement,
as Neighbor Churches, and another thing to be dependant as Subjects on
governing Churches: And it is one thing to be Independant on equal Neighbor
Churches; and another thing to be independent on a superior Ministry: The
Churches of
Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus,
and the rest, were independent on
each other, as to Government; but they were dependant on the Apostles and
Evangelists (
Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Mark, Silas, Timothy, Titus,
and
Apollos, &c.
)
as to Oversight and dependant on other Churches as Fellow-members of the same Universal
Body, as the Members of our Bodies are. 3. I know no Churches to happy
as to have nothing that is not particularly (yea, or generally) instituted in
Scripture; yea, and that obtruded on the People. O! when will God make them
wiser? some Independant Ministers and Churches have Catholic, Charitable,
Uniting Principles. But the separating part who are they that have so many and
great Defects and Faults as I have in my former Writing enumerated, and need not
here again recite, but advise you impartially to review them.
Quest.
6. Whether every Person who doth join with such a Church doth not become as guilty
of the Sin of such a Church, as those do that join with the Church of
England?
Answ.
This Question intimateth that you know not what the Church of
England
is: It is nothing but a Christian Kingdom, consisting of a Christian supreme Power,
and combined Christians and Churches governed by that Power; it is not Liturgies
nor Ceremonies that essentiate the Church of
England:
Orthodox, Godly
Presbyterians, and Independents who deny not a Christian Kingdom of Christian
Churches (though differing in many thing) are all parts of the true Church of
England:
But I suppose you mean the Conformists (which are but a part).
2. One is guilty of the Faults of the Conformists by their bare Presence and
Communion, who do not consent to those Faults, and if bare Presence signified
Consent, we must avoid Communion with all Churches on Earth, for who are Sinless?
And all must avoid us; and how shall we avoid ourselves, who sin in all
we do?
3. But when People causelessly separate and unchurch other Churches far
•
ounder
than their own, and falsely accuse them; yea, and almost all Christ's Churches
these Fifteen Hsndred Years, as those now called Separatists usually do, I think
your ordinary joining with such, when you may have sounder Communion is a
sinful Encouragement of them in their Schism, justly leaveth you under the Imputation
of Schism, and requireth great Humiliation and Reformation, being
greater than some great private Sins, as public Cases are more important than private;
but I am loath to say all that I judge true against the present separating Way,
lest I be mistaken, as if I would render them odious, or be against the necessary
Toleration of the Week.
I have truly told the World near Forty Years ago, that I am past doubt that neither
the Episcopal Presbyterian nor Independant way alone, will well settle the
Church: But that each of the three Parties (and those called
Erastians
) have somewhat
of the Truth in peculiar, and somewhat of Faultiness, and if ever the Church
be well settled, it must be by taking the best, and leaving out the worst of every
party, and till that can be done, we must bear with what we cannot amend.
BEcause your Friend refuseth Conference, though I promised secrefie, and a loving
Debate, I will for your sake answer your Questions myself, which I
take to be these Two: I Whether you ought not presently to fix yourself in a
particular Church, and not continue any longer occasional Communion with
many.
II. What Church you should be a fixed Communicant in.
I. As to the First, I know not well what is meant by
fixed Membership
by the Author
of the Writing which you shown me; you must be a fixed Member of Christ,
and the Church Universal, or else you are no fixed Christian: But as to particular
Pastors and Congregations,
Order,
and
Concord,
and
Edification
are the general
Rules which tell you where to fix and how far.
1. You ought not to commit any real Sin for Communion with any Church.
2. Though you may and must join with faulty Assemblies and Worship; yet you
must not justify their Faults, nor profess your Consent to them, nor promise that
you will never endeavor any Amendment of them.
3. There must be no Self-obliging unnecessarily: Liberty is not so contemptible
a thing that we should cast it away for naught; much less must you bind yourself
contrary to God's Providence, or without excepting Alterations by it.
4. Your Church-Membership, as to particular Congregations must have no greater
fixedness than your Habitation and other Obligations: You may remove your
Congregational Relation when you remove your Dwelling; and none can hinder
you from removing both, when your Interest requireth it. Suspect them that
would make you their Propriety.
II. As to the Second (where you should fix):
1. You are in your Father's House, under his Government, and must obey him
in all lawful things; and must not go against his Consent.
2. You are a Member of a Christian Family; and no Scripture tells us of the
Members of one Christian Family being of divers Churches, nor alloweth it.
3. Scripture knoweth no particular Churches, but what were bounded by Neighbourhood
and Cohabitation; except Heretics: There were never Churches gathered
out of Churches then; nor two approved Churches of the same Language
in the same Bounds.
1. I do hereby undertake to prove against any Disputer, that there is no Form
so agreeable to God's Word, as this following: 1. A Christian Kingdom consisting
of a Christian King (or supreme Power) and particular confederate Churches
being the Burgesses, and peaceable Unbelievers that tolerated Aliens or Catechumens.
2. A reformed Episcopacy Successors to the Evangelists, that (without the
Sword or Force) had the Care of many Churches. 3. Reformed Parish-Churches,
consisting of Godly Pastors, and professed Christian Cohabitants, the incapable
being Catechumens; which made the old Nonconformists declare that they were
so far from being against Parish-Churches, that
their Lives would be a burden to them
if they were not restored to them.
The first Church State that Christ himself made, was the
Platform of a Christian
Kingdom Church,
offering to make
Judea
such, setting Twelve Apostles over the
Twelve Tribes, and Seventy two Disciples, the Number of their great Council,
and so would have gathered all
Jerusalem's
Children to himself,
as a Hen gathereth
her Chickens,
Mat. 23. which they refusing he declared that the Kingdom of God
should be taken from them, and given to a Nation that would bring forth the fruit
thereof; and so they were cut off for their Unbelief, and we graffed in (to the
same Olive or political State, the Mosaical Law only changed for Christ's Law):
And as all the Prophets foretold this, that Christ's Church should be a Davidical
Kingdom; so after Two Hundred Ninety Four Years Trial it was set up, and
the Pagan Empire,
Babylon,
did fall, and Christ reigned by Christian Emperors,
and his enemies were made his Footstool, and the Kingdoms of the World became
the Kingdoms of the Lord and of his Christ, consisting of Churches confederate
for Unity; and the Nations brought in their Glory to it; and the Fulness of the
Gentiles came in, and all the
Israel
of God were saved,
Judea
becoming the most
Christian Nation in the World: And Heaven and Earth rejoiced at the Fall of
Babylon,
and this new
Jerusalem's
ini
•
ial S
•
a
•
e: And sure it is such a Kingdom-Church
which those expect that talk of the future Thousand Years Reign of Christ. As
Teachers are under him as Prophet, and Priests as he is Priest; so are Christian
Kings as he is King; and bad Kings are no more Reason against his Institution than
bad Teachers and Priests.
2. There are Three Sorts of Pastors or Bishops in Christ's Church:
I. Such as were to gather many Churches (out of Infide
•
s) and to set Elders or
fixed Bishops over them, and then oversee both the Elders and People: Such Christ
made the Apostles, whose Office was partly extraordinary and temporary, and is so
far only ceased, and partly ordinary and continued, and so Christ promised to be
with them to the end of the World: And such were Evangelists sent forth with
and by the Apostles to gather and oversee many Churches and Pastors: Such were
Titus, Timothy, Luke, Mark, Barnabas, Silas,
and many more. God never recalled
this Order of Ministers, if any say he did, it lieth in them to prove it. This was
the first sort of Pastors.
II. The Second Sort were the fixed Elders which these ordained in every
Church; who were all Bishops over the Flocks, and so called: but under the general
Ministers (who yet had none of them any forcing Power by the Sword) these
two God instituted.
III. The Third Sort (between these Two) was a President Pastor in every particular
Church, like the President of a College, who had some moderating guiding
Power among the rest of the Elders: This was set up to avoid Division among
the Elders (every Church having usually many) and received even in some of the
Apostles Days, and never rejected for a Thousand Years.
3. Particular Churches in Scripture Times were distinguished by the places of
their Neighbourhood, as I said before; and there were never two Churches in the
same Bounds, except Heretics, and Men of divers Languages.
From this it is plain, that the most Divine From of Government is 1. A Christian
Kingdom. 2. With (Reformed) General Ministers. 3. And (Reformed) Parish-Churches,
having fixed Pastors (and where it may be our Chief)
&c.
Moreover
(as to your fixing) the Churches in Question with you, I suppose, are not the
Papists, the Quakers, the Familists,
&c.
But the Episcopal, the Presbyterian, the
Independent and the Separatist (if not the Anabaptists also).
I. The Episcopal are of Two Sorts, Conformists and Nonconformists. The
Episcopal Conformists are of Two Sorts; some lately sprung up, that follow Archbishop
Laud
and Dr.
Hammond,
hold that there are no Political Churches lower
than Diocesan, because there are no Bishops under them; and so that the Parish-Churches
are no Churches, properly, but part of Churches; nor the Incumbants
true Bishops, but Curates under Bishops; nor the Foreigners true Ministers or
Churches that have no Diocesan Bishops. This Party called themselves the Church
of
England,
1658, 1659. When we knew but of Four or Five Bishops left alive
(who Dr.
Hammond
said (with that Party of the Clergy) were of his Mind): And
these seemed uppermost in 1660, and 1661. and were the men whom I disputed with
in my Treatise of Episcopacy.
The other Episcopal Conformists are they that follow the Reformers,
and hold the Doctrine of the Scripture as only sufficient to Salvation,
and as explicatory of it, the Thirty Nine Articles, the Homilies, Liturgy,
Book of Ordination, Apology,
&c.
These take the Parish-Pastors for true Rectors,
and the Parish-Churches for true Churches, but subordinate to the Diocesans, and
to be ruled by them. But the Laws have imposed on them some Declarations and
Subscriptions, which they think they may put a good Sense on, though by stretching
the Words from their usual Signification. The Bishops and Deans are chosen
by the
King indeed,
and by the
Prebends in show.
The Incumbant are chosen by
Patrons ordained by Diocesans with Presbyters, and accepted by Consent of the
Communicants of the Parish. The Episcopal Government is managed partly by
the Bishops, and partly by Lay-Civilians and Surrogates.
The Episcopal Nonconformists are for true Parish-Churches and Ministers, reformed,
without swearing, promising, declaring, or subscribing to any but sure,
clear, necessary things; desiring that the Scripture may be their Canons, disowning
all persecuting Canons, taking the capable in each Parish for the Communicant
and Church, and the rest for Hearers and Catechized Persons: desiring that
the Magistrate be Judge, whom he will maintain, approve, and tolerate, and the
Ordainers Judges whom they will ordain, and the People be free Consenters to
whose Pastoral Care they will trust their Souls; desiring that every Presbyter be an
Overseer of the Flock, and every Church that hath many Elders have one Incumbent
President for Unity and Order; and that Godly Diocesans may (without the
Sword or Force) have the Oversight of many Ministers and Churches; and all these
be confederate and under the Government of a Christian King, but under no Foreign
Jurisdiction; though in as much Concord as is possible with all the Christian
World: And they would have the Keys of Excommunication and Absolution taken
out of the Hands of Lay-Men (Chancellors or Lay Brethren); and the Diocesans
to judge in the Synods of the Presbyters, in Cases above Parochial Power.
That this was the Judgment of the Nonconformists that treated for Peace in
1660. and 1661. is to be seen in their printed Proposals, in which they desired
Archbishop
Usher
's Model of the Primitive Episcopacy joined with the Synods of
Presbyters.
II. The Presbyterians are for Parish-Churches as aforesaid, guided by Elders, some
teaching, and some only ruling, and these under Synods of the like Class, without
Diocesan or Parochial Superiors; and all under a National Assembly of the same,
as the Supreme Church Power.
III. The Independents are for every Congregation to have all Church Power in
itself, without any superior Church-Government over them, whether Bishops or
Synods, yet owning Synods for voluntary Concord.
Of these some are against local Communion with the aforesaid Churches, and for
avoiding them by Separation; some as if they were no Churches, and had no true
Ministers; some for Forms of Prayer, some for faulty Communicants, some for
Episcopal Ordination, and some for subscibing, and some for all these, and many
other pretended Reasons.
But some Independents are for occasional Communion with the other Churches,
and some also for stated Communion in the Parish-Churches, for which you may
read Mr.
Tomes
's the chief of the Anabaptists in a full Treatise, and Dr.
Thomas
Goodwin
on the first of the
Ephesians,
earnest against Separation (as the old Nonconformists
were).
Now which of all these should you join with? I affirm, that all these except the
Separatists are parts of the Church of
England,
as it is truly essentiated by a Christian
Magistracy, and confederate Christian particular Churches. All are not
equally sound and pure, but all are parts of the Church of
England:
Liturgies, and
Ceremonies, and Canons and Chancellors are not essential to it, as a Church, or
Christian Kingdom: But it is now a Medly, less concordant than is desirable: but
you are not put upon any such Disputes; whether you will call the present
Church of
England Roman,
as denominated from the King that is the Head; or
whether you will say that King and Parliament conjunct are that Head, and so it is
yet Protestant, because the Laws are so; or whether you will denominate it materially
Protestant, because the Clergy and Flocks are so; your Doubt is only,
what Congregation
to join with.
I answer, That which all your Circumstances set together, make it most convenient
to the public good and your own.
Though I hold not Ministerial Conformity lawful, I take Lay-Communion in any
of these except the Separatists, to be lawful to some Persons, whose case maketh it
fittest: But I judge it unlawful for you to confine your Communion to any one of
them; so as to refuse occasional Communion with all save them.
1. The Parish-Churches have the Advantage of Authority, Order and Confederacy,
and the Protestant Interest is chiefly cast upon them, therefore I will not separate
from Lay-Communion with them, though they need much Reformation.
2. You must not go against your Father's Will, no, nor divide the Family,
without necessity: The same I say of your Husband when you are married.
3. The Nonconforming Episcopal and Presbyterians have not such Churches as
they desire, but only temporarily keep Meetings like to Chapels, as Assistants to
others, till Parishes are reformed.
4. I think it a stated sinful Schism to fix as a Member of such a Church and Pastor
as is of the Principles of the Writing which you shown me.
I. Because they grievously slander the Parish-Churches and Ministers as none,
and their Worship and Government as far worse than it is.
II. Because they Renounce local Communion with almost all the Body or Church
of Christ on Earth, by renouncing it on a Reason common to almost all.
III. Because they separate from such Churches as Christ and his Apostles joined
with, and so seem to condemn Christ and his Apostles as Sinners. Christ ordinarily
joined with the
Jews
Church in Synagogues and Temple-Offices; when the
High Priest bought the Place of Heathens, and the Priests, Pharisees and Rulers
were wicked Persecutors, and the Sadducees Heretics or worse, he sent
Judas
as an
Apostle, when he knew him to be a Thief or a Devil.
The Apostles neither separated nor allowed Separation from such Churches as
Corinth, Gallatia, Ephesus, Smyrna, Sardis, Laodicea, &c.
defiled with odious Crimes
and Errors; though God command them to reform.
IV. Because hereby they tempt Men to infidelity, when they hear that Christ
hath no greater a Body and Church than they with which Men may lawfully communicate;
and rob him of almost his Kingdom.
V. By false accusing the Prayers of almost all Christ's Church, and renouncing
Communion with them, they forfeit their Interest in the Benefit of their Prayers,
and of the Communion of Saints.
VI. Who but Satan would have all the People of
England
and all Nations to live
without any public Church-worship, till they can have better than such as is in
our Parish-Churches; as if none were better.
VII. With whom would these Men have held Communion if they had lived in
any Age till two hundred Years ago? when as far as ever I could find, there was
not one Congregation of Christians or Heretics in all the World that was against
Forms of Worship, or Bishops, or all Ceremonies; let them name one if they can,
what then will they say to the Question, Where was your (new) Church before the
two last Ages? Had Christ no Church for One Thousand Two Hundred Years
in all the World, that a Christian ought to join with in local Communion? Did
Christ disown them all, and yet was he their Head, and they his Body? Or are
these Men as much stricter than Christ, as the Pharisees were about his Converse
and the Sabbath?
VIII. They condemn themselves by their own Practice, while some of them
cry down Communion with imposed Forms of Liturgy; they sing Psalms imposed
by the Pastor or Clerk, which are the chief part of imposed Liturgies: They sing
them in new Versions, Metre, and Tunes, different from the Apostles Churches
(and yet better for us): They use imposed Translations of the Scripture: The Pastor
imposeth his Words of Prayer, as a Form which the People
••
st all join
with: This is but a different Mode of Liturgies.
IX. Charity (or Christian Love) and Unity are the great vital Graces of the
Christian Church: And oh, how woefully do these Men violate and destroy it?
when, as is said, they renounce Communion for a Thousand or Twelve Hundred
Years at least, with all known Churches on Earth, as unlawful in point of local
Presence. 2. They bind all Christians that will hear them, to do the like to this
Day, to almost all the Churches on Earth. 3. Their Principles and Reasons make
it sinful to have Communicated with the Reformers, the
Waldenses, Wycliffe, Luther,
Melancthon, Zwinglius, Calvin, Bucer,
and the rest. 4. And they condemn Communion
with the Martyrs, both under Heathens, and of later Times, who made or
valued and used Liturgies. 5. They condemn local Communion with all the late
and former holy excellent Bishops and Conformists; such as Archbishops
Parker,
Grindall, Abbot, Usher, &c.
Bishops,
Hall, Morton, Pilkinton, Downame, Davenant,
and many such: All that glorious Tribe of Conformists;
Preston, Sibbs, Bolton,
Whately, Crook, Io. Downame, Stoughton, &c.
Oh, how great a Number
and how excellent, almost matchless Men? Almost all the late
Westminster
Assembly.
6. And all the excellent old Nonconformists that were against Separation;
Dearing, Greenham, Perkins, Bayn, Reynolds, Dod, Hieldersham, Bradshaw, Ball,
and Multitudes of such of greatest Piety and Parts. 7. All, or near all the Reformed
Churches. 8. All the mere Independents that were against their Separation;
such as Dr.
Tho. Goodwin
aforesaid, and many of his Mind. 9. Yea, they condemn
the Old
Brownists,
who Printed their Profession of Communion with many
Parish-Churches, and with Liturgies. 10. And they utterly condemn all local
Communion with the mere Nonconformists of this Age, who offered Terms of
Concord in Liturgy and Episcopacy, 1661. None of all these are good enough for
these Men (especially their Women and Lads) to have any present Communion
with.
Do they know how little radical Difference there is between saying, as Persecutors,
All these are Heretics;
and as Separatists,
All these are unworthy of Christian
Communion:
Yea, the Pope rejecteth Communion but with two or three parts of
the Christian World, and these Men renounce local Communion with almost all:
Is this the way of Love and Unity in the Body of Christ?
X. Is Provoking, Excommunicating them the way to reconcile the Public Ministers
and Churches? Or is this a time to join with the Enemies of the Protestant
Religion, to draw all the People to forsake them? That so the Reformation here
may have only private Toleration as we have, till some Disorder is said to forfeit
it? the King promiseth to defend them, and shall separating Protestants pull them
down?
XI. The Weakness of these Men's Judgments and Dealings, bring all the Nonconformists
into Contempt and Scorn with Multitudes of undistinguishing Men, as if
we were all of the same Temper, and hardeneth Thousands in hatred to them all,
and maketh them long to be persecuting us again, and keepeth them from repenting
of the Evil they have done: Offence must come, but woe to them by whom it
cometh.
XII. God hath most expressly decided this Controversy in Scripture, and these
Men seeming Adherents to Scripture cannot see it,
Rom.
14. and 15. and 16.
17.
John.
17. 22, 24.
Phil. 2. Eph.
4. In a Word, in all those Texts that plead for,
Church Unity and Love; and all those that speak of the sinfulness of Schism, and
that
a kingdom divided cannot stand;
and all those that condemn Dividers, and all
that command mutual forbearance,
&c.
Do you think that
[receive one another as
Christ received us]
even
them that are weak in Faith itself]
doth mean no more than
[do not
silence them,
or
imprison,
or
murder them:
] No doubt but it meaneth,
receive
them to Church-Communion.
XIII. What a great Sin is unjust silencing worthy Preachers. And do not these
Men endeavor to silence more thousands than the Act of Uniformity, or Bishops
did, when they tell all that it's a Sin to hear them.
XIV. If it be unlawful to join with
others
that are
no worse than they,
it must be
unlawful to join with them:
If I be guily of all that is said or done amiss in the Parish-Churches,
I shall be more guilty if I join with the Separatists.
I am not desirous to accuse any, but to cover their Faults as far as I can. But I
cannot resolve your Question without telling you that I take their Church-State to
be so far different from the Rule, and in many Respects worse than the Parish-Churches,
as that to join with them as fixed covenanted Members, will be a state
of Sin.
1. Scripture-fixed Ministers,
or
Elders
were all
ordained by superior general Pastors,
either
alone,
or with
Presbyteries:
So are not theirs (if by any at all).
2.
Scripture-flocks were ruled by their Pastors,
Heb. 13. 7, 17, 24. 1 Thes. 5. 13, 14.
1 Pet. 5. 1 Tim. 3,
&c.
But many of their Flocks are the Rulers of themselves and
Pastors.
3.
Scripture particular Churches
were all distinguished by the
Limits of their Habitation
or
Proximity;
so that there was never two Churches in the same City or Bounds,
save Heretics, and Men of divers Tongues (at least where one could hold them all)
But it's otherwise with the Separatists.
4. No lawful Church in Scripture, was gathered out of a true Gospel-Church:
But theirs are.
5. Scripture Churches had fixed known Tests to know qualified Members by;
which was consent to the Baptismal Covenant, explained in the
Creed, Lord's-Prayer
and
Commandments:
So that all Churches had the same Test and Terms of Qualification,
and so had one Profession. But these Men leave this Arbitrary to the
Pastor (or People) to try whether Men are converted by uncertain Terms and
Words devised by every Minister; so that the Terms are unknown and not agreed
on among their Churches, and may be as various as Ministers.
6. Scripture-Churches never divided the Christians of the same Family, some to
one Church, and some to another: But these Men do so, to great Confusion.
7. They are not agreed on any Form of Doctrine to be a Test of their Agreement
with other Churches with whom they will have Communion: If they say
that the
Scripture is that Test;
I answer, a
General Belief that Scripture is the Word of
God,
is neither sufficient to Salvation, nor to Communion: Many have this, who
deny the Essentials of Christianity: And an explicit Understanding and Belief of
every Text, no Man hath. Thousands of Texts are not understood by most Christians
or Teachers; therefore there must be some Collection of the Essentials in a
Creed, or else there can be no certain Notice whether so much of Scripture Truth
be explicitly believed as is necessary to Salvation. And if single Pastors require
more, it must be only in order to Growth and Edification, and not as a necessary
Qualification for Membership, or Communion of Churches.
I have great Cause to know what I say of them. A Parliament once chose Fourteen
Ministers to draw up the Fundamentals of Religion, as a Test of such as were
to be tolerated in Union: There were Dr.
Owen,
Mr.
Nye,
Dr.
Thomas Goodwin,
Mr.
Sydrak Simpson,
Dr.
Cheynel,
and others: Bishop
Usher
was chosen, and refused;
and I was chosen in his stead: Before I came they had drawn up Fourteen or Fifteen
Articles all in new Terms of their own, and some neither Essential, nor true:
I told them that we were not to make a new Christianity or Creed, but must own
that which the Christian Church was known by in all Ages: But I could not be
heard, though Mr.
Vines
and Mr.
Mant
•
n
joined with me. At last they wrote this
for a Fundamental;
[That they that allowed themselves or others in any known Sin, cannot
be saved.]
I told them that though I could not be heard by them, I durst say,
that I would make them presently blot it out. They bid me, do it if I could. I
said,
[The Parliament taketh Independency, Separation, Anabaptistry, and Antinomianism
for Sin: And they will say, These Divines pronounce us all Damned if we allow
them.]
They said not a Word, but threw away their Fundamental. The rest of them
they printed: But the Parliament were glad with silence to pass by all their Works,
and take no notice of it, lest it should be a public Reproach that we could not agree
on the Fundamentals. And I am glad that I hindered such an Agreement as they
would have made, instead of the old Creeds which they would not rest in. And
can such Churches be of any known Consistency or Concord? If you join with
them, how know you what Religion they are of? Or how know they what other
particular Churches are in their Communion? (for I hope they hold a Communion
of Churches.)
Arians
and
Socinians
say they believe the Scripture: No Man
understandeth all the Scripture: The necessary selected Articles they have no
known Agreement in: If they say that they own the same Creed that we do, why
then do they not use it as the Test of Christian Profession, but instead of it leave
every Pastor to make one in Terms that is only his, and no two Churches have the
same: To agree in Independency or Separation, is not to agree in Christianity:
There are abundance of Books written for very false Doctrines by men called Independents
(it's odious to name them.) Are all the Author of their Communion or
not? The Assembly could never get them to tell whom they would take to be of
their Communion, and whom not.
8. Therefore their Churches are not compaginate nor confederate so as the Members
of our Body should be, and as Scripture-Churches were, and as Christ would
have had the Jewith National Church to be.
9. They have no Certainty and Concord in their
Church-Worship,
which they
have little more than such Preaching and Praying, which cannot be known for
true
or
false, sound
or
unsound
till the Words are past: And it may justly be expected
that Separatists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, Socinians, and all erroneous Men
should put their Errors into their Sermons and Prayers, and sinfully father them all
on God: And so all God's Worship must be contiually uncertain to the Flocks;
and of as many different Strains as the Preachers differ in Parts and Wisdom: And
it must be low, and poor, and confused, wherever the Ministers are young, raw,
erroneous or ignorant.
They once met at the
Savoy,
and drew up an Agreement of many Pastors: But
in that they differ from many other Churches called Independents, and from the
Anabaptists. And they expressly contradict the Scripture, 1. In saying that [
we
have no Righteousness but Christ's
which is imputed to us] when as Scripture many
Hundred times mentioneth also another personal, inherent, or acted Righteousness.
2. They say that
[Faith is not imputed for Righteousness].
I think they mean well:
But they
should
rather
expound Scripture
than
flatly deny or contradict
what it saith;
and after, defame those falsely that would help them more distinctly to understand it.
Their People are taught to speak evil of what they understand not, and to represent
Men as dangerous or odious, who think not of many wordy Controversies as confusedly
and ignorantly as they. Their Churches are too usually constituted of such
Novices in Knowledge of both Sexes, as are like a School where the Boys call their
Teacher a Deceiver for every word by which he would deliver them from their
Errors, and teach them more than they knew before.
10. They lazily gather a few that seem so much better than the rest, as will put
them to no great labor in Teaching and Discipline. But if all the rest of the Parishes
lie in Ignorance, how little are we beholden to these Separatists for the Cure.
When I came to
Kidderminster,
some, inclined that way, importuned to me to take
a few Professors of Zeal for my Flock, and let the rest follow their ignorant Readers.
But when I renounced their Counsel, and after my own and my Assistants
long Catechizing them, and persuading all the Families, House by House, they saw
the Body of Town and Parish in love with serious Religion, they told me they had
been undone if I had followed their Counsel:
William Allen,
who, with Mr.
Lamb,
were Pastors of an Anabaptist Arminian Church, first separated from the Parish-Churches,
and next from the Independents, was turned from Independency much,
by seeing (being our
Kidderminster
Factor) that Parish-Churches may be made as holy
as separated ones, and the People not left by lazy Separatists to the Devil: So
that this Experience made him and his Companion more against Independency than
I am.
11. They abuse the People in indulging them in works that they were never called
to, nor are capable of, nor can give any comfortable account of to God; that
is, To be the Judges of Persons admitted to Communion, and of Men's Repentance
and Fitness for the Sacrament,
&c.
whenas God hath put this Power, called
The
Church Keys,
into the Pastors and Rulers hands, (the not over-forced Men, but Volunteers).
Baptism is the true Churches Entrance, and the Baptizer is the Judge of
the Capacity of the Baptized: no more but Consent to particular Church Relation
and Duty, is necessary to Membership of Neighbor Christians in particular Churches.
And nothing but proved nullifying the Baptismal Covenant by Heresy, or
Sin impenitently maintained or contained in, doth forfeit their visible right to Communion.
And if the People must judge of all these, they must have their Callings
to examine every Person, and they must grow wiser and abler, then many of their
Leaders are.
12. Their Churches have among them no probable way of Concord; but they
are as a heap of Sand, that upon every Commotion fall in pieces. The Experience
of it in
Holland
broke them to nothing: And it so affected the Sober in
New-England,
that in 1660. or 1661. Mr.
Ash
and I were fain to dissuade Mr.
Norton
and
Mr.
Broadstreet,
whom they sent hither as Commissioners, from inclining to our
English
Episcopacy (foretelling them what was doing and we have seen) so deeply
were they afraid of being received by that Peoples uncurable Separation from their
ablest Pastors, whenever any earnest erroneous Teachers would seduce them. Their
Building wanteth Cement.
13. God hath so wonderfully by his Providences disowned the way of Schism
and Separation (on how good pretences soever) that I should be too like
Pharaoh
in
hardness, if I should despise his warnings. For Instance,
1. In the Apostles days all are condemned that separated from the settled Churches,
even when those Churches had many heinous Scandals, and St.
Paul
saith, That
all
they in
Asia
were turned from him.
The Authority and Miracles of the Apostles did
not serve to keep Men from Separation and raising Schisms.
2. Even when the Church lay under Heathen Persecutors for 294 years, yet
Swarms of Condemned Sects arose, to so great a number, as that the naming and
confuting them filleth great Volumes, to the great Reproach of the Christian
Churches, and Scandal of the Heathens.
3. As soon as
Constantine
delivered the Churches from the Flames of cruel Persecution,
and set up Christians in Power and Wealth, separating Sects grew greater
than before, each Party crying up their several Bishops and Teachers, and grew
worse by Divisions, till thereby they tempted the Papal Clergy to unite Men carnally
by force.
4. At
Luther
's Reformation Swarms of Separatists arose in
Germany, Holland, Poland,
&c. to the great dishonor of the Protestant Cause.
5. Here in
England
it hath been ill in Queen
Elizabeth's
time, by the Familists
and Separatists; and far worse since: It was such as
Quarterman
and
Lilburn,
and other
Separatists that drew Tumults and Crowds down to
Westminster,
to draw the
Parliament to go beyond their own Judgment, and thereby divided the Parliament-men,
and drove away the King, which was the beginning of our odious War. It
was the Separating Party that all over the Land set up Anti-Churches in the Towns
that had able godly Ministers, when they had nothing imposed on them to excuse
it, neither Bishops, Liturgies, nor Ceremonies. So that Churches became like
Cockpits, or Fencing-Schools, to draw asunder the Body of Christ. It was the
Separating Party that got under
Cromwell
into the Army, and became the common
Scorners of a godly able Ministry, by the Names of the
Priest-byters,
the
Driviners,
the
Westminster-sinners,
the
Dissembly-men,
as Malignant Drunkards did, and worse.
It was these that thought Success had made them Rulers of the Land, that caused
the disbanding of all the Soldiers that disliked their Spirit and Way, and then pulled
down, first eleven, and then the major part of the Parliament, imprisoning and
turning out Men of eminent Piety and Worth, and making a Parliament of the
minor part, and their killing the King, and afterward with scorn turning out that
minor part that had done their work, and to whom they had oft professed themselves
Servants: It was these Men that set up a Usurper; that made a thing
called a Parliament, all of his and his Armies nomination. If this should ever be
imitated, whom may we thank. It was these Men that set up the Military Government
of Major-Generals: It was they that set up and pulled down so many
feigned Supreme Powers in a few years, as made themselves the Scorn of the
World, and by a dreadful warning of Divine Justice, all their victorious Army and
Power dropt in pieces like Sand, as they would have used the Church, and was
dissolved without one Battle or drop of Blood, save the after-Blood of their Leaders
that were hanged, drawn, and quartered by Parliament Sentence. It is these
Men and these doings that have hardened thousands against Reformation, and turned
all that was done for it (O what did it cost, and what raised hopes had many of
the Success) into Reproach, quieted the Consciences of those that have thought
they served God by silencing, hating and persecuting those that they thought had
been of this guilty Sect. In a word, the spirit and way of causeless Separation,
whether by violent Prelatists Pursuits and Excommunications, or by self-conceited
Sectaries, was never owned or blest by God.
If any say (truly or falsely)
You have had a hand in some such thing yourself.
I answer, If I had I will hate it, and write against it so much the more.
To thrust ones self into a way so disowned by God, by such a course of fearful
warnings, is to run with
Pharaoh
into the
Red-Sea;
especially when Impenitence
so fixeth the guilt on them that cannot endure to hear of it, as may make us fear
that the worst
〈◊〉
behind, and Sin and Judgments yet continue.
The Sum of what is said to you on the other side, is that the Church of
England
and the Parish Churches have no true Ministry, and therefore are no true Churches:
That they confess there is no Church without a Bishop, and no Bishop below
the Diocesan, and so no Church below the Diocesan Church: That those are
no Scripture Bishops and Churches; and Men cannot be Pastors against their wills,
and the will of their Diocesans. That I contradict my Treatise of Episcopacy in
denying this: With more like this.
To which I say, I. If the Parish Congregation were but part of a Church, you
might join with it as a part, as well as with part of an Independent Church. And
they that can hear a Lay-man with the Separatists, might hear the Ministers there
•
II. Whether I contradict myself, or not, is nothing to your Cause and Conscience.
I undertook not, when I wrote, that none should willfully or ignorantly
misunderstand me: The formal Notion of a National Church is nothing but a
Christian Kingdom: The Matter is Christian Rulers and Subjects, and as ordered
Confederate particular Churches:
England
hath been such for many Ages. Here
from the Reformation they owned the Sovereign Power as the Head of the Political
National Church, as Christ is of the Universal, (under him). They owned
Parish-Churches under Diocesans, and true Ministers therein: Their Books show
their Judgment, their Articles, Apology, Homilies, Liturgy, Ordination, Canons,
&c.
These Books are still owned by the Church: But at last a new sort of Bishops
rose up that would have made the Parish Churches to be no proper Churches, but
like Chapels under the Diocesan: These called themselves the
Church of England,
when there were but about four or five Bishops left alive, who Dr.
Hammond
said
were of his mind. Some such domineered afterward, and would have set up that
way, but never prevailed either to retract the Churches Books and Laws, nor to
get the major part of the Clergy to own them. Now all the vain question here is,
Which of these two Parties shall be called
The Church of England?
Neither of them
alone: They are two disagreeing parts of it: I argued against the last, professing
not to do it against the first; which your Counselor would take no notice of. And
what's all this to you? If you will not be of the National or Diocesan Church, you
may be of a Parish Church.
III. I proved that if all the Bishops and Parliament had said, The Parish Ministers
are no true Pastors, this would not have made them none, (though they
might be guilty of deposing them as far as they could:) no more than it would
make the Nonconforming Ministers and Churches to be none: Because we all take
the Office as instituted by Christ, and Men to be but investing Servants to him, having
no power to alter it: And as in the Marriage the Husband shall have power over
the Wife though he that marry them say Nay; so shall an ordained Elder be a
true Pastor though the Ordainer say Nay.
IV. I proved that the old Church Books and Doctrine are in force still by Law,
and the Kingdom and Church are sworn or bound,
not
to endeavor any
alteration
in the Government of the Church: Therefore not to put down the Parish Ministry
and Churches. Therefore this is the Sence of the Church of
England,
though
not of the new Faction that usurped that Name.
V. Though a Man cannot be a Pastor against his will, yet he may be one
without his knowledge, if by Error he think he is none. For he may consent to
all the Office, while he thinks it is not all, and denieth the Name. If a Man think
that a Deacon may do all essential to a Pastor, and so that he is but a Deacon, he
is nevertheless a Pastor if he consented to the Work. Many thousands are Christians
that think they are not, and do truly consent to Christianity, while they think
they do not. And why may it not be so also to the Ministry?
VI. But our Case needeth none of these Reasons. For where there is all that is
essential to true Pastors and Churches, there are true Pastors and Churches: But
by God's great mercy, in many thousand Parishes in
England,
there is all that is essential
to true Pastors and Churches: Therefore they are such. When you will call
me to dispute it with any Denier, I will fully prove to you, (That there is great
need of Reformation).
1. That the Church of
England,
as it is a Christian Kingdom, containing Confederate
Churches under a Christian King and Laws, is that very Form that Christ
offered to settle in
Judea,
and did settle by
Constantine.
2. That if the Diocesans be good Men, and lawfully chosen, as they are mere Successors
of
Timothy
and
Titus,
and others that had the oversight of many Churches
and Pastors (by the Word) they are righter than the Opposers.
3. That the Incumbents of the Parish-Churches have a valid Ordination by such
Bishops and Presbyters, righter than the Dividers.
4. That many thousands of such Pastors are Men of competent Abilities: and
many of greater Ministerial Abilities than most of us Nonconformists: yea, that
no known Nation under Heaven hath, in so small a compass, so many able Ministers
as
England.
And that to deny it and separate, is great ingratitude towards God.
5. That Parish Bounds are a laudable Distribution of Churches; the capable
Members being Communicants, and the rest Catechumens.
6. That the ordinary Communicants in multitudes of Parishes, are Membrs that
have all that is essential to Church-Membership.
7. That the Pastors have power from God for all their Work, and Men's denial
(even the Ordainers) nullifieth not that Power, when they are in general ordained
Presbyters.
8. That by the Law of the Land they have all Power essential to Pastors: They
may keep from Communion all that are not Confirmed, and there have owned their
Baptismal Covenant, or are ready and desirous so to do, and therefore may try their
readiness: This is required by the Liturgy: And they may deny the Sacrament to
all that live in scandalous Sin: And they must prosecute such to the Bishops Courts.
The Law calleth them
Rectors
(Rulers), and they own themselves for such: And
even the Canons (that are their worst restraints) do own the same; and so do the
rest of the Church-Books and Laws, that they all subscribe to, and promise not to
alter: Ask them whether they take not themselves for true Pastors, if you would
know whether they consent to be such.
9. Though some late Innovators, that called themselves
The Church of
England,
would, as far as they could, have nullified in some part the Parish Ministry and
Churches, and the Canons themselves do sinfully limit the Exercise of their
Power, (the Cause of our Calamities), yet this nullifieth not the Office and
Churches; the Essential Power being settled both by God's Laws and the Churches;
and the restraint of Exercise nulleth not the Power.
10. That to Exclude any from Communion that are Baptized and at Age,
have owned their Christianity, and are not proved by sufficient witnesses to have
nullified that Profession by Apostasy, Heresy, or a wicked or scandalous Life, is
Church Tyranny and Injustice; of which all are guilty that do it or desire it.
11. That if this Discipline be neglected by the Ministers sinful Sloth, or by the
sinful Omission of the People, that will not (first privately, and then before witness,
and then to the Church or Pastor) admonish the Offenders, this is the Sin of
Pastors and People, but nullifieth not the Church or Office.
12. Through God's great Mercy the Doctrine professed by the Church of
England,
and usually preached in many thousand Parish Churches, is sound, and as
well preached as in any other known Kingdom on Earth (though Ministers have
had their Sins which we still smart for and by).
13. There is nothing in the Liturgy-worship which the Laity in the Congregation
are ordinarily to perform or join in, which they may not lawfully do or join in,
or be present at: (most that needeth Reformation being in Rubrics and By-Offices,
Baptizing, Confirmation, Excommunications, Absolutions, Burials, and in the
Ministers part).
14. The Ministers have all the three parts that can be accounted by any party
necessary to an outward Call. 1. They have the Magistrates Consent (by his Law)
who is Judge whom he will maintain and tolerate. 2. They have the Ordainers
Consent and Mission (Bishops and Presbyters) who are Judges whom to Ordain.
3. They have the Communicants Consent expressed in their constant Attendance
and Communicating; who are the discerning Judges to whom to commit the Pastoral
Care and Conduct of their own Souls: And though more be desirable, no
more is of necessity.
15. The Confederate Parish-Churches of
England
that have able godly Pastors,
want nothing, which CHRIST or his APOSTLES, or the UNIVERSAL
CHURCH of Christ for Six hundred years (yea or to this day) did
ever make or judge necessary to the being of Ministers or Church. Nor have the
said Churches any Error or Sin in Doctrine, Worship or Government, which either
Christ or his Apostles, or the Universal Church, for Six hundred years after
Christ, did judge inconsistent with the being of a valid Minister, and true visible
Churches.
The large proof of these Fifteen Propositions I offer, though too long now to
perform; which though they will not justify such Ministerial Conformity as I have
been urged to, yet you may easily see by them, 1. What Church-Frame is most
agreeable to Scripture. 2. And what to judge of the false Accusers of the Church.
3. How far Separation is sinful Division, and contrary to Christian Love and Union.
I know the Dividers say,
1. That I am turned Conformist. 2. And why do I not Conform,
if I think so well of the Parish Churches and Liturgy. And 3. Why have I lost above
Twenty thousand pounds in Five and twenty years, by refusing a Bishopric and other
Preferments.
To whom I answer; If our printed Proposals, Disputes, and Petitions for Peace
in 1661. and my first, second, and third Plea for Peace, and many more such Writings,
and my Cure of Church Divisions, and my Book for the true and only way
of Church Concord, and my Confutation of many that made me a Separatist
while I Communicated in my Parish Church, and never gathered a Church merely
because I forsook not my Ministry, but
gratis
preached a Lecture, and my Book
against Sacrilegious Desertion of the Ministry; I say, if all these Books will not silence
these ignorant Objectors, nor restrain them from speaking evil of that which
they understand not, I owe them no more, nor can hope to cure their quarrelsome
Ignorance, should I say or write never so much more. They have contemned so
many
excellent Rulers,
and
Pastors, single
and
Assemblies,
far wiser than I, and so censoriously
condemn almost all the Body or Church of Christ on Earth, that I am
not so vain as to expect to escape their Censure. Even in
New-England,
not only
Mr.
Wilson,
Mr.
Norton,
and such other single Independent Ministers, lived and died
in lamented Separation, and warning the Land against it as their danger, but their
Synods have been at much trouble thereby, and left their Healing Determinations
and Testimony against that Dividing Spirit and Way.
They that would see more, may read a small Book of Mr.
Philip Nye
for Hearing
the Parish Preachers; and a bigger Book of Mr.
John Tombes
(the greatest and most
learned Writer against Infant-Baptism) vindicating the Lawfulness and Duty of
joining in ordinary Communion in Word, Prayer, and Sacrament with the Parish-Churches.
Dr. Thomas Goodwin on Ephes. 1. Serm. 36. pag. 488. explaining
some Words in the foregoing Sermon.
IT was understood as if I said,
That all Parish Churches and Ministers generally were
Churches and Ministers of Christ, such as with whom Communion might be held.
I
said not so: I was wary in my Expressions. I will only say this to you about it.
There is no Man that desireth Reformation in this Kingdom (as the generality of
all godly People do) but will acknowledge and say, That multitudes of Parishes,
where
Ignorance
and
Profaneness
overwhelmeth the
Generality, Scandalousness
and
Simony
the
Ministers
themselves, that these are not Churches and Ministers fit to be
held Communion with. Only this; The Ordinances that have been administered
by them (so far we must acknowledge them, that they) are not to be recalled or
repeated again.
But here lieth the Question, my Brethren, and my meaning: Whereas now in
some Parishes in this Kingdom, there are many godly Men that do
constantly give
themselves up to the Worship of God in public,
and
meet together in one place to that end,
in a constant way, under a godly Minister, whom they themselves have
chosen
to
cleave to, (though they did not choose him at first)
These, notwithstanding their
mixture
and want of
Discipline,
I never thought for my part, but that they were
true Churches
of Christ,
and
Sister-Churches,
and so ought to be acknowledged: And the contrary
was the Error that I spake against.
Secondly, For holding
Communion
with them, I say, as
Sister-Churches, occasionally
as Strangers, Men might
hold Communion with them:
And it is acknowledged by all
Divines, that there is not that Obligation lying upon a Stranger, that is not a
Member of a Sister-Church, to
find fault in that Church,
or
in a Member of it,
as doth
on the Church itself, to which one belongeth.
I will give you my Reasons that moved me to speak so much. It was not simply
to vent my own Judgment, or simply to clear myself from that Error: but the
Reasons, or rather the Motives and Considerations that stirred me in it, were
these.
First, If we should not acknowledge these Churches, thus stated, to be
true
Churches
of Christ, and their Ministers
true Ministers,
and their
Order such;
and hold
Communion with them too, in the Sence spoken of, we must acknowledge
No
Church in all the Reformed Churches;
None of all the Churches in
Scotland,
nor in
Holland,
nor in
Germany;
for they are
All
as full of mixture as ours: And to deny
that to our
own Churches,
which we do not to the Churches abroad, nothing can be
more absurd: And it will be very hard to think that there hath been no Church
since the Reformation.
Secondly, I know nothing tendeth more to the peaceable Reformation among
us, than to break down
This Partition-Wall:
for there is nothing provokes more
than this doth, to deny such Churches to be true Churches of Christ. For do but
think with yourselves, and I will give you a familiar Example: You come to a
Man whom you think to be a godly Man; you tell him, He hath these and these
Sins in him, and they are great ones: It is as much as he can hear, though you tell
him he is a Saint, and acknowledge him so: but if you come to him, and say, besides
this, You are a Limb of the Devil, and you have no Grace in you, this provoketh
all in a Man, when there is any Ground in himself to think so, or in another
to judge him so; so it is here: Come to Church and say, You have these
Defects among you, and these things to be reformed: But if you will come and say,
Your Churches and your Ministers are Antichristian and come from
Babylon, there is nothing
provoketh more. Therefore if there be a Truth in it (as I believe there is)
Men should be
Zealous
to express it: For
this is the great Partition Wall that hindereth
of twain making one.
Then again, This is that which I consider, and it is a great Consideration also.
I know that Jesus Christ hath given his People Light in Matters of this Nature by degrees.
Thousands of good Souls that have been bred up and born in our Assemblies,
and enjoy the Ordinances of God, and have done it comfortably, cannot
suddenly take in other Principles: You must wait on Christ to do it.
In this Case Men are not to be wrought off by
Falshoods,
God hath no need of
them; no, rather till Men do take in Light, you should give them all that is comfortable,
in the Condition they are in; we should acknowledge every good thing in
every Man, in every Church, in everything; and that is a way to work upon
Men and to prevail with them, as it is
Philem. v. 6. That the Communication of
thy Faith may become effectual acknowledgment of every good thing which is in you in
Christ Jesus.
It is that which buildeth Men up, by acknowledgment of every good
thing that is in them.
Lastly,
The last Inconvenience is this, It doth deprive Men of all those Gifts that
are found amongst our Ministers, and in this Kingdom, that they cannot hold any
Communion or fellowship with them.
So that I profess myself as
Zealous in this Point, as in any other I know.
And for my
part, this I say, and I say it with much Integrity: I never yet took up Religion by
Parties in the Lump. I have found by trial of things that there is some truth on
all Sides: I have found Holiness where you would little think it, and so likewise
Truth. And I have learned this Principle, which I hope I shall never lay down
till I am swallowed up of Imortality, and that is, that which I said before,
To acknowledge
every good thing, and hold Communion with it, in Men, in Churches, or Whatsoever
else.
I learn this from
Paul,
I learn this from Jesus Christ himself: He filleth
All in All: He is in the Hearts of his People, and filleth them in his Ordinances to
this Day: And where Jesus Christ filleth, why should we deny an Acknowledgment,
and a right Hand of Fellowship and Communion?
My Brethren, this Rule that I have now mentioned (which I profess I have lived
by, and shall do while I live) I know I shall never please Men in it: Why? It is
plain; for this is the Nature and Condition of all Mankind, if a Man dissents
from others in
one thing,
he loseth himself in all the rest: And therefore it a Man
do take what is good of all sides; he is apt to lose them all: But he pleaseth Christ
by it, and so I will for this particular.
Thus far Dr.
T. Goodwin
prefaced and commended by
Thankful Owen,
and
James
Barron,
worthy and peaceable Men, deceased.
The Transcriber craveth judicious Resolutions of these two Questions:
1. Whether it be lawful to be a fixed Member of a grossly Schismatical Church,
that is guilty of such separating from slandering almost all others, as is here reproved,
when Communion with better may be had?
Quest.
2. How far others are bound to reprove and Testify against such dividing
Principles, Ministers and Churches, especially after and under doleful Experience
of their sinful calamitous Effects?
I Have felt that in my own Soul, and seen that upon my Brethren for these two
or three Years last past, which persuadeth me that God is about the healing of
our Wounds, having communicated more healing Principles and Affections, and
poured out more of the Spirit of Catholic Love and Peace than I have perceived
heretofore. Love is arisen and shineth upon the Children of the Day, and your
congealed Stiffness begins to vanish, and a Christian Tenderness to succeed. The
Prince of Peace erects his Banner, and the Sons of Peace flock in apace. It is a
shame to be the last, but a misery to be none. God will bring his divided, distracted
Servants nearer together; and it is Pity he should be put to bear down any resisting
Saints among the Instruments of Satan, and that any of their Carcasses should be
found on the Ground when he conquereth the Enemies of Peace. The Lord is
about revealing to his Servants the Error of their Consoriousness, Harshness, Uncharitableness,
and Divisions, and how grievously they have wronged him and
themselves by departing so far from Christian Love and Unity. He will let them see
how much of the Cause was secret and undiscerned; Pride and Self-conceitedness
and want of Holy Christian Love, while little was pretended or discerned but
Strictness and Obedience. He will show them more fully wherein the true Nature
of Grace and Holy Obedience doth consist, and teach them by the Impress
of his Spirit, what he so emphatically commanded them by his Word, to go
learn what that meaneth,
I will have Mercy, and not Sacrifice:
It's pity we should
not understand the meaning of Words so plain; but it's Sin and Shame as well as
Pity that we have studied them no better, after such a
Memorandum
and Command
as this. But many of God's Servants have in the Points of Unity and Peace
been like those miserable Souls, that are described to
have Eyes and see not, Ears and
hear not, Hearts and understand not,
(these blessed Precepts of Love and Unity,
though none more plain, and frequent, and urgent) for the time was
not come that they should be recovered and healed; though this Defection be
not in the Essence of Christianity, but the Degrees; nor for Perpetuity, but a Time;
yet it's sad that such a Spirit of deadness should so far prevail, that Men inquisitive
after Truth, and zealous of Holiness, should least understand the plainest,
nearest, frequent Precepts, and so little feel their Obligations to such weighty Duties,
that the Lord is pleased to stir upon their Spirit among others, is a great rejoicing
to me. And I hope I may tell you, that it is in vain, as I am sure I may
tell you it is no small Sin anymore to resist and strive against him. If the Hand
of our dear and tender Lord be setting you in joint again, shrink not on account
of present pain, (much less should you fear the Reproach of being in Communion
with the Body) but impartially hearken unto him and yield; but lay by all Tumults
of Spirits and Passions, and get out of the Noise of vulgar Clamours; for the
Voice of Peace is a still Voice, and in Calmness must be attended unto: And
when you are restored, if you find not the Sweetness and Advantages of Peace
(if you are indeed restored in Mind as well as Practice) the Lord hath not spoken
in this by me. I can hardly think that he that hath raised these Thoughts within
you, and begun these Convictions, will let them die. In order to the Ends desired
and hoped for, I shall offer you so much of my present Thoughts, as your
described Case requires. And 1. though I desire not to dispute the Case of Infant
Baptism with you now, yet I may say, we believe you live in a constant
Sin against the Lord, in neglecting, denying and opposing it, and that if you
will by one erroneous Supposition draw on a Chain of hurtful Consequences, you
are the Cause of your own Disorders. At a fitter Season I should desire you but
to answer me this one Argument: All that should be sacramentally or solemnly
enticed into the Holy Covenant with God, as his People, should be Baptized (or
at least be taken as true Members of the Church, and their Entrance just) but the
Infants of believing Parents should be sacramentally and solemnly entered into Covenant
with God or his People;
Ergo, &c.
The
Minor
we give you the abundant
Proof of Law and Promise for, before Christ. It was
Abraham
's Duty and Privilege
according to the Tenour of the Promise which was made with him before
the Law, to enter his Children sacramentally and solemnly into the holy
Covenant. It was all the Churches Duty after both Jews and Proselytes; both
the uncircumcised Females, and the circumcised Males, and all the uncircumcised
Church in the Wilderness,
Deut.
29,
&c.
Tell me now how I should answer it before
the Lord, if I tell Parents that they are absolved from this Duty of solemn
entering their Children into the Covenant, and are divested of the blessed Privilege;
especially when you here tell me well, that you know of none but his Body
that Christ is the Savior of, and that the Church is this Body;
Ergo,
you
know of no Salvation for Infants if they be not of the Church;
Ergo,
Exclussion
would be a heavy Case, shall I say that Christ hath recalled this Law and Grant?
but how should I prove it? I show you the Law and Grant; do you show me the
Repeal, and we have done. Christ never speaks a word to repeal it, nor any of
his Apostles. Entring our Children into the holy Covenant, is not a Ceremony.
If God say to a Father, why didst thou not dedicate this Child to me, and
solemnly enter him into Covenant with me? what can he say? The Precept.
Promise and long Practice were plain; was the Repeal also plain? Yes; if it be
a Repeal for Christ to take such Children into his Arms, and bless them, and tell
us of such is his Kingdom, and to be offended with those that would have kept
them from him; and to command that all Disciples be Baptized. He knew well
enough when he instituted Baptism, and exercised it first upon the adult, that the
Jews
did so too with their Proselytes: And
Ergo,
when he did in that no more
than they did that yet admitted the Infants of Church-Members, his baptizing the
Adult could no more signify his Denial of Infants to be baptized, than the
Jews
baptizing the Adult could signify it, who at that time baptized Infants also: nor
could the Disciples interpret Christ's Doctrine and Will to be contrary to the
Jews,
when his Practice was no more than theirs: And when he never uttered a Syllable
to intimate a Repeal of that great Mercy and Duty of entering Infants solemnly
into the Covenant which by God's Appointment had continued so long. And
the Covenant was,
I will be thy God, and thou shalt be my People.
But all this falls
in besides my first intent, and therefore I rather expect your Pardon than your regard
of it at the present; though time may show you Light in that which now
seems Darkness.
2. But if our Infant Baptism were irregular, how will you prove it a Nullity?
never by any sound Argument; every Irregularity is not a Nullity. Whether you
take the Word as signifying
Faedus Sacramentale,
a Sacramental Covenant (as
Scripture commonly doth, more notably intending the Covenant than the outward
Act) or
Sacramentum Faederale
a Federal Sacrament or Action, (most notably
signifying the Sign or Act) it's all one to our purpose, for Infants are capable of
both the Covenant, and the outward Sign, and of all that is essential to Baptism.
That they are capable of being entered into Covenant, 1. Nature tells us, we
commonly enter them under Princes as their Subjects, and into private Contracts
with Landlords for Possessions. 2. The ancient Law, Promise and Practice of
the Church before Christ tells us, for then it was actually done by God's Command.
And that they are capable of the outward Sign is undeniable. Prove it a
Nullity if you can, though it were a Sin.
3. But if both were granted, the Sin and Nullity, I come now to give you my
Reasons why it warrants you not to deny Communion with the Churches that
were thus Baptized in Infancy. And 1. I beseech you note that Baptism is as
necessary, if not much more, to the Admission of Men into the universal visible
Church as such. or into a particular Church:
Ergo,
If Men may be admitted into
the universal visible Church without adult Baptism, then he may be admitted into
a particular Church without it: But yet here grant that he may be a Member of
the universal Church without it:
Ergo,
Baptism is indeed appointed to be our regular
entrance by way of Sacramental Covenant and Investiture into the Church
Universal, and not into a particular Church necessarily, though it may be into both,
yet it is but indirectly into the particular Church. The Eunuch, and all that were
baptized first in any place by the Apostles, were baptized only into the Church
universal, and afterward settled in Order under Pastors in particular Churches.
Baptism, as such, as it was called our Christening, doth only list Men under
Christ as Christians, and if it do anymore as to the thing in Question, it is accidentally,
and not always, nor necessarily: We are not (directly sure) baptized to
our Pastors, and so not to that Particular Church, nothing then is more plain
in Scripture than that Baptism was appointed for our Entrance upon our State of
Disciples in general: And
Ergo,
if a Man may be a visible Disciple without it,
where it seemeth most necessary, then much more may he be admitted into a
particular Church afterward without it, when at least it is no more necessary, and
indeed much less, and not at all, save only as universal Church-Member, this is
pre-requisite to particular. The Ministers of Christ Baptized 2000 without asking
the Consent of any particular Church. 2. They that are under both a Precept
making the use of instituted Ordinances their Duty, and a Promise of Acceptance
in the Performance, must perform these Duties with belief of their Acceptance:
But such are these that you account unbaptized:
Ergo,
That they are
under a Command is plain. All the Precepts for Christian Communion, and not
forsaking the assembling of ourselves and obeying those that rule over us,
&c.
are
made to the whole visible Church, that hath Opportunity for such Communion,
you will not think that our Sin (as you take it) can except us from an Obligation
to Duty. But all the Question is, whether such Duty will be accepted if performed
by the unbaptized (as you now suppose them) and this you grant, professing
yourself that you are out of doubt that we are very well accepted of God,
and you think that it is accounted for Baptism to us. And if you yield both that
we are bound to the Duty, and shall have Acceptance in particular Church Communion,
what is it then besides the regularity that you deny? Do you not grant
the Cause in Hand? And we have many Promises of Acceptance of Believers in
their sincere Endeavors, and all things are pure to the Pure. And if involuntary
unavoidable Mistakes shall hinder our Acceptance when we are sincere, then
we can never be sure that we are accepted. 3. It is but visibility that is requisite
in a Church or Member to make them capable of our Communion. If it be a
Communion of Christians as Christians, or Saints as Saints that particular
Churches are to hold withal, that consent and are Members of their Churches,
then Christianity or visible Sanctity in such Consenters is all that is of Necessity
to such Communion: But the Antecedent is plain: As it is as Christians that we
must inwardly love one another, so it is as Christians, that we must manifest that
Love in holy Communion. Communion is the Demonstration of Love; and all
Men must know us to be Christ's Disciples by our loving one another; and therefore
if any Man be but a visible Christian, it's plain that he's capable of your
Communion (if he cohabits and consent) else it were not
formalitur
a Communion
of Saints or Christians, but of something else: Now you confess that Men are
visible Christians that are (to you) unbaptized.
4. There is no such thing as a universal visible Church that is not to use Eucharistical
Communion, nor any parts of it that have opportunity. Your similitude
of Corporations in a Republic holds in some things, but hath this dissimilitude,
that all Christ's Republic should consist of such Corporations, except a
Person that is a Merchant Traveler, Embassador, or by some extraordinary Necessity
is denied Opportunity: which Rarities are not here of Consideration. And
whereas in Republics, it may be as commodious for rural Villages to be not incorporate,
as for Cities to be incorporate, and their Privileges in their Nation
may be as great, and they are not obliged to incorporate, none of this
is so in our Case: But every visible Christian (not hindered by Necessity)
is bound to incorporate, and charged not to forsake the Assemblies; but all to
join and speak the same things and Glorify God with one Mouth,
&c.
And he
that is not a visible Christian, hath no visible Right to our Christian Communion:
And he that is a visible Christian and depriveth himself of this Communion sinneth,
and wrongeth his own Soul, and as it were, out-laws himself, and is not as
you suppose in your Comparison of the not-incorporate: But though in some
Cases such may be saved, as deny instituted Communion and Worship, or neglect
it, yet they do so far put themselves into the State of those without.
5. Your Opinion sets up a new kind of Church, or Christian Assemblies and
Communion of such as may only hear and Pray, and not have Eucharistical
Communion and be under Church-Guidance: Shew us any such in Scripture if
you can.
6. Heathens or Infidels are called to a natural Worship of God:
Ergo,
visible
Christians are called to more.
7. Faith itself hath its Office formally by Institution, though its aptitude thereto
be in the Nature of the thing. And if the Gospel itself be supernatural, and
our Christianity and Faith an instituted thing, as well as Sacrament and Governors,
and so the universal visible Church an Institution as well as a particular,
then certainly want of Baptism will no more keep a visible Christian out of the
particular instituted Church, than out of the universal; because as to the Point of
Institution there is no such Reason as can make a Difference.
8. The great and excellent part of Church Communion is that which you
call natural Worship as performed by Believers, in the loving God in Christ and
admiring and magnifying his Love, in the Riches of the Grace of Redemption,
and seeking with all Saints to comprehend it, hearing his Counsels and Commands,
praying for his Grace and Glory, and praising and magnifying him in Faith, and
Hope, and Love, with our Eye upon the second Coming of our Lord. And
that which you call Instituted Order and Worship, is but the means to this, and
without this but a Shell: It is subservient to it. And therefore
1. They that are capable of the greater, are capable of the less. Heathens are
bound to mere natural Worship, and their Hearing and Praying is another thing,
and Obligation and Capacity differ.
2. They that must do the work, must do it in God's way, and by his means.
The great internal Worship is as the Soul, and the external as the Body, which
are to be distinguished, but not separated. Must one sort of Christians have the
Soul of holy Communion without the Body, and carry the Knife naked, while
you deny them the Sheath?
9. If a Member of the Universal visible Church, as such, is
pro tempore
to be
admitted to Communion in all Ordinances with any particular Church where
they come, then these that you acknowledge such visible Members, must by you
be so admitted, and so are capable of Communion in instituted Ordinances, but
the Antecedent is true beyond Dispute. None of the Apostles were Members of
particular Churches, but were as Itinerants to do their work in many Countries:
so was it with abundance of Itinerant Preachers of those times called their Companions
and Fellow Laborers and Helpers: as
Barnabas, Luke, Mark, Silus, Timothy,
Titus, Epaphroditus, Apollos,
&c. When
Paul
came to
Troas,
Acts 20. he
and all his Company are admitted among the Disciples in breaking Bread, and
that not as Members of any particular Church, but as Christians. Some Christians
are lawfully excused, and necessarily deprived of stated Church-Membership
in a particular Church (as Princes Ambassadors, that may spend their Lives
in motion and action in several places,
&c.
) And shall all these Christians be deprived
of actual Communion, Sacraments,
&c.
in the Places where they come,
because they are uncapable of any fixed station. Yea, when perhaps it may be
the Work or Cause of God that is the Cause of their unsettledness.
10. Dare you undertake to exempt all, but those that you judge Baptized, from
the frequent Precepts of knowing those that are
over them in the Lord,
and submitting
themselves, and esteeming them highly in love for their work sake, and
being at peace among themselves, 1
Thess.
5. 12, 13. and from giving
double honor
to the Elders, 1
Tim.
5. 17. and obeying those
that rule over them,
&c.
Hebr.
13.
7, 17. All Christians that have opportunity are bound to submit to and obey
their Guides and Pastors, and that cannot be statedly, but in a particular
Church. And then if you look to the beneficial part, it's plain, that when Christ
ascended up on high, and gave gifts to men,
it was for the perfecting of the Saints,
and the work of the Ministry, and edifying of the Body of Christ, even that
Pastors and Teachers were given, till we all
come in the unity of the faith, and the
knowledge of the Son of God to a perfect Man,
Ephes. 4. 9, 11, 12, 13. And will you
exclude twenty, if not five hundred parts of the Church from this (all this) benefit
of Pastors and Teachers, when Christ provided them for all? Consider what
you do?
11. The Unity of the Catholic Body, and their commanded correspondency
requireth a Fellowship with all the Parts according to opportunity. From Christ
the whole Body fitly joined together (or jointed, which is by Officers, Order,
and Love) and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the
effectual working in the measure of every part, (when you exclude a hundred, or
many hundred parts from their Communion) maketh increase of the Body to the
edifying of itself in love, (not only secret, unknown love, but love appearing in
Communion)
Ephes.
4. 16.
12. Excommunication out of particular Church-Communion, in instituted
Ordinances, is a grievous Censure, and never inflicted on the holy Servants of
Christ, that never willfully resist or reject his Truth or Precepts. No nor on Offenders,
but for impenitency, or grievous Crimes. Durst you Excommunicate
me out of your Church, if I were in it, and professing my owning of Baptism,
and my hearty longing to know and obey the will of Christ. There is
many an honest humble Christian in this Town (that I conjecture you may
know and deal for) that if you should cast out, on such an account, I am confident
infinite Love would be offended with you, and say you have touched
the Apple
of mine Eye. Inasmuch as you cast out these my Members, you did that which was too
like casting out me.
And sure you must cast them out upon your grounds, if they
were in your Church, because you judge them uncapable of a station and communion
with you, and judge yourselves bound to separate from such.
13. You seem to exalt an outward Act even when the heart disclaims it, before
a heart that is right with God, without the Act. For if you had one twice or
thrice Baptized in your Church that afterward disclaimed it, and owned none
but his Infant Baptism, what would you do with this Man? If you would retain
him, you would lay more stress on a disclaimed outward Action, than on the Life
of Grace. If you would reject him, then it seems you judge not the Baptism and
Entrance, which you suppose right, to be enough in Fact and Existence, but you
think a belief of its Necessity necessary, and so you put it among the
Credenda,
and not the
Agenda
only, when it was never in the Churches Creed. For if it be a
necessary Article of Faith, they must perish that reject it.
14.
Paul,
and other Penmen of the Scripture, telling us of many greater Errors
than the thing you oppose, doth not require an avoiding of the Communion
of the Erroneous, yea commandeth us to
receive them that are weak in the faith,
but not to doubtful Disputations,
Rom. 14. 10. and dare you reject a strong Believer
upon a doubtful Disputation?
15. Search, observe, and judge whether the abundant earnest Precepts for Special
Love, and Company, and Endearedness of Saints, as Saints, (I could soon fill
a Sheet with pertinent Citations) will possibly consist with your rejecting them
from special Communion and Separating from them. Is this the appearance of
your honoring them that
fear the Lord,
Psal. 15. and your Loving the Brethren,
and that with a pure heart fervently. Can all Men know you by this to be Christ's
Disciples? Communion is but the expression of this special Love, and holy Improvement
of each other for God and our mutual Benefit. As he contradicts
himself that saith,
He loveth God and hateth his Brother,
so doth he that saith he loveth
his Brother and yet separateth from him, or rejecteth him (and most such on
Earth) for an unavoidable infirmity. If you that are strong (or think so) are bound
to bear the Infirmities of the weak, then not to Excommunicate them,
Rom.
15.
1. Though this Body hath some Parts which we think less honorable, yet must
there be no Schism in it, but the Members must have the same care one of another
as Suffering, being honored
and rejoicing together,
1 Cor. 12. 24, 25, 26. nor
must one part say to another,
I have no need of thee,
nor cut it off from the Communion
of the Body. The general command of Love, Company, Familiarity,
Edifying, and Admonishing one another, comprehends the Means in which this
Communion must be held, or will not be fulfilled in rejecting such Persons.
16. When you are in doubt between two Difficulties, the clearest and greatest
Truth should prevail against the less. But much more when on one side there is
great weight and no difficulty; and on the other, much difficulty and far less
weight; the uncertain smaller Point should give place to the greater, and more
certain. But it is of clearest certainty and greatest weight, that we dearly love
the Saints as Saints, and use them as Saints, and have Communion with them as
Saints: But you are not so sure that you must not reject almost all the Saints on
Earth for want of your season of Baptism, nor hath God laid weight by Promise
upon such a Duty, or by a Threatning driven you to it, (but contrarily condemned
it as a sin).
17. Doth not your Cause plainly bear an Image contrary to that of God?
Love
is likest him that is Love. Charity covereth infirmities,
and thinketh no evil,
and
shall we find them (and make them) in our Brethren? Christ gathereth, and will
you scatter? he reconcileth and uniteth, and will you divide? he justifieth, and
will you be he that shall condemn? Even them that are in Christ Jesus?
who walk
not after the Flesh, but after the Spirit;
and all for want of delaying Baptism till your
time, when in Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth nothing nor uncircumcision, but
the New Creature and Faith that worketh by Love.
Have you marked how Unity and
Love is inculcated in the New Testament, and that as Omnipotency is most eminently
engraven upon the Creation, and Wisdom on the Laws of God, so Goodness
is most eminently engraven on the Redeemer, and that in this Glass the Father
in his Love and Goodness must be known, and hereby the Impress and Image
of Love must be made upon our Souls. They that are least for Love and
holy Unity, are least like God, and least for him, and most like his Enemy and
ours.
18. Christ is both King, Prophet, and Priest, and no one is sincerely related
unto him in any of these respects, but is related to him in all: And
Ergo,
all
Christians are to be under his Church-Government and Protection in his Family,
as well as under his Teaching. If they are by your own confession
Fellow Citizens
of the Saints, and of the
household of God,
do not disfranchise them, nor deny them
their Privileges.
19. Will not your Principles lead to narrowness of holy Charity in Communication
of worldly Goods, and destroy Christian Communion in this? Those that
were in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship in breaking of Bread and Prayer,
(not through levelling, but charitable Community) had all things as common:
sure you will refuse this when you refuse Communion in Sacrament: you will on
the same ground think that those few only of your Opinion are to partake of this
Special Communication: For the Reason is the same.
20. Contrary to the Spirit and Scope of the Gospel, you lay greater stress upon
the very timing of a holy Ceremony, than under the Law was laid upon the
being of the Ceremony itself. Women had Communion without Circumcision.
The Males in the Wilderness did hold all holy Communion, even in the Passover,
without Circumcision. To all this, let me add these few Questions to
you.
1. Do you think, in the most humble frame of your Soul, that you have no failing
as great as you suppose the mis-timing of our Baptism to be; and would you
be rejected for it?
2. Is this norrowness of special loving Communion answerable to the Principles
of Universal Redemption and Grace, wherein I suspect you go beyond me?
3. Have you well considered that God's Unity is the first of his Attributes next
his Being? The Lord our God is one God. And so the Unity of the Church is
next the very Essence of it, so to be regarded and maintained: The Unity cannot
be destroyed without destroying the Essence; and therefore many Truths and
Duties must be put behind the Churches Unity, when accidentally the use of
them is made inconsistent with it.
4. It hath been the common frame of the Church since the Apostles days, till of
late, to consist of a mixture: one half baptized at Age, (being converted at Age
from Infidelity, and their Baptism before neglected) and the other half that were
born of Christian Parents baptized in Infancy: And both sorts lived in Peace and
Love: and no Church History, that ever I read, doth give us any the least intimation
that ever these two Sorts disagreed hereupon, or accused one another's way,
or made it any occasion of a Division. And will you advance Knowledge and
Holiness in the end of the World, by advancing Uncharitableness and Division.
5. Bethink you with sobriety, as before the Lord, if you had lived in the
Church in the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and
tenth Century, or lower, in all which (though many were baptized at Age, being
not Christians by any Infant Covenant yet) no Writer that ever I saw doth
tell us of one Church, or one Pastor, no nor of one Man that was a Catholic
Christian, (no nor of one Heretic that I remember) that was against the lawfulness
of Infant Baptism; I say, if you had then lived, would you have separated
from all the Churches on Earth? What! from the Universal Church in your
Communion? or would you have had all these Ages have laid by all instituted
Church Order and Worship? The consequences of this would rise so high, that
I will not name them to you. Only I would further ask you,
6. If you think their Baptism a Nullity? and consequently the instituted
Churches, Ministry, Order, Sacraments, Nullities, that were used in all those Ages
(the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth,
&c.
) when almost none but such as were
baptized in Infancy were Church Members; how far then do you differ from the
Seekers
that tell us,
All these were lost in the Apostasy?
2. And how easily will a
Papist trample you in the dirt, and laugh you to scorn, when he puts you to prove
Successive Church, and Ordinances, and Ministry? 3. And what advantage give
you the Infidels, and our own Remnants of Infidelity, to deny the Head by so
far denying the Body?
7. Would you have a Unity, and do you ever expect such a thing or not?
If not—If you do, on what terms do you expect it? You can never with
the least Encouragement of Reason expect that all should deny Infant Baptism, and
come to you. These late years have given you as much advantage as you can
well expect, and yet you see the most of the Godly dare not come to you. If therefore
you will neither come to them in Judgment, nor yet close in Communion
with Christians of different Judgment, what do you but give up Unity as desperate,
and fix in your divided State.
8. And will you give the Papist Disputants so much Encouragement, as to confess
to them, that among us there is not any hopes of Unity, or loving Christian
Church Communion. I have been longer than I intended upon these Reasonings:
but it is because I would not neglect you, but someone of them at least
may stick upon you, of which success (your lives declaring you so honestly, impartially,
and happily disposed to Love and Peace) I make no doubt. And now
to your Objections, which should have been my whole Task, but that I would
make sure the Issue.