Bishop Joseph Hall (1574–1656) on the Predestination and the Death of Christ

Calvin and Calvinism » Blog Archive » Bishop Joseph Hall (1574–1656) on the Predestination and the Death of Christ

Bishop Joseph Hall (1574–1656) on the Predestination and the Death of Christ

VIA MEDIA:

THE WAY OF PEACE

________________

THE FIRST ARTICLE.

OF GOD’S PREDESTINATION.

1. WHATSOEVER God, who is the God of truth, hath engaged himself by promise to do, the same he undoubtedly hath willed, and will accordingly perform.

2. There is no son of Adam to whom God hath not promised that, if he shall believe in Christ, repent, and persevere, he shall be saved.

3. This general and undoubted will of God must be equally proclaimed to all men through the world, without exception, and ought to be so received and believed as it is by him published and revealed .

4. All men, within the pale of the church especially, have from the mercy of God such common helps towards this belief and salvation, as that the neglect thereof makes any of them justly guilty of their own condemnation.

5. Besides the general will of God, he hath eternally willed and decreed to give a special and effectual grace to those that are predestinate according to the good pleasure of his will; whereby they do actually believe, obey, and persevere, that they may be saved: so as the same God, that would have all men to be saved if they believe and be not wanting to his Spirit, hath decreed to work powerfully in some whom he hath particularly chosen, that they shall believe, and not be wanting to his Spirit in whatsoever shall be necessary for their salvation.

6. It is not the prevision of faith, or any other grace or act of man, whereupon this decree of God is grounded; but the mere and gracious good will and pleasure of God, from all eternity appointing to save those whom he hath chosen in Christ, as the head and foundation of the elect.

7. This decree of God s election is absolute, and unchangeable, and from everlastings.

8. God doth not either actually damn or appoint any soul to damnation, without the consideration and respect of sin.

THE SECOND ARTICLE.

OF CHRIST S DEATH.

1. God, pitying the woeful condition of man, fallen by his free will into sin and perdition, sent his own Son, that he should give himself as a ransom for the sins of the whole world: so as there is no living soul that may not be truly and seriously invited, by his faith to take hold of the forgiveness of his sins and everlasting life, by the virtue of this death of Christ, with certain assurance of obtaining both.

2. Upon this infinite merit of Christ s death is grounded that universal promise and covenant of the gospel, offering remission and salvation to all men through the whole world, if they be not wanting to the receipt thereof.

3. Notwithstanding this infinite merit of Christ s death, the fruit arid benefit thereof doth not accrue to all men; but to those only who do apply the virtue of his death by faith.

4. Those, within the church especially, that do not reap this benefit by the death of Christ, perish manifestly by their own default; forasmuch as God hath ordained that, wheresoever the gracious promise of the gospel shall be preached, there shall be and is withal ordinarily so much supernatural grace offered together with the outward means, as may justly convince the impenitent and unbelieving of a willful neglect, if not a contemptuous rejection.

5. Besides this general promise of the gospel, God hath decreed to give a special, more abundant, and effectual grace unto his elect; whereby they may be enabled certainly and infallibly to apply unto themselves the benefit of Christ’s death; and do accordingly believe, and persevere, and attain salvation

* * * * * * * * *

Concerning the extent of Christ’s death, the Belgic opponents profess to rest willingly in those words of Musculus: Omnium peccata tulit, &c: “He hath borne the sins of all men, if we consider his sacrifice according to the virtue of it in itself, and think that no man is excluded from this grace but he that refuses it. So God loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, to the end that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life; John iii. 16. But if we respect those which do so believe and are saved; so he hath borne only the sins of many.” Thus he.1 Neither will the opponents yield any less. What is this other than the explication of that usual distinction which we have, whether from St. Austin or his scholar Prosper, of the greatness of the price, and the propriety of the redemption?2 that equal to all, this pertaining but to some. That common word seems enough to the Belgic opponents: “The price of Christ’s blood is sufficient to save all:” and if this may serve their turn, who can grudge it? Contrarily, while they do willingly grant, that in respect of the efficacy of power, Christ died not for all; and that Christ was given only with this intention of his Father, that the world should no otherwise be saved by his Son than through faith; what need we urge more?

Both will grant that the apothecary s shop hath drugs enough for the cure of all diseases, which yet can profit none but those that are willing to make use of them. Both will accord in this position, which B. Overall commends, as in effect the words of worthy Mr. Calvin: So Christ died for all, that there is no man, if his incredulity did not hinder him, but were redeemed by his precious blood: neither is there, as is willingly confessed by the defendants, any man living to whom it may be singularly said, Christ died not for thee.35 Seeing therefore whole mankind doth but result of singular and individual men, why should we fear to say unto all, that Christ died for them?

Now what should we stand upon a niggardly contestation of words, where so much real truth is mutually yielded? Who can think there can be any peril to that soul who believes thus much? The rest to the schools.

But whatever have been the nice scruples and explications of foreign divines, we have no such cause of strife, if we admit that which our learned bishop commends for the voice of the church of England! who, having laid down the two extreme opinions of the opposite parts, brings in the church of England as sweetly moderating betwixt both: that she, supposing the death of Christ for all men, and God’s conditional intention of the general grace of his evangelical promise, adds moreover the special intention of God to apply the benefit of Christ’s death, by a more abundant and effectual grace, absolutely, certainly, and infallibly, to the elect alone, without any diminution of that his sufficient and common favour; which as we see so yields to both parts what they desire, as that in the meantime it puts upon both what they are not greatly forward to admit: yet that which it puts upon them may be admitted without any complaint, except perhaps of excess of charity; and that which is yielded is abundantly enough for peace.

Joseph Hall, “Via Media: The Way of Peace,” in The Works of the Right Reverent Joseph Hall, (New York, Ames press, 1969), 291-492 and 510-11. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; Latin footnotes not excluded, except for three relevant notes; and underlining mine.] [Note: Hall was one of the English delegates to Dort, until illness forced him to return to England.]

________________________

1[Musculi Comment, in Esaiam. [liii. 5.] Basil. 1570. pp. 705,6.]

2Magnitudinem pretii distinguit a proprietate redemptionis. ["Quod ergo ad magnitudinem et potentiam pretii,sanguis Christi est redemptio totius mundi, &c. Prosper! Reap, ad Object. Vincent. Opp. August, vol. x. App. col. 208.]

3Nulli hominum aingulariter denun- turn pro ipso mortuum non esse. Ibid. Iciatur, [neque ulli denunciatur] Chris- p. 155.

The Autobiography of a ‘Meer Christian': Richard Baxter's Account of the Restoration

www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_122_2_Gatiss.pdf

Lee Gatiss

While undertaking research recently for a book on the ejection and persecution of the puritans from the Church of England in 1662,1 I had the pleasure of reading a first edition copy of Richard Baxter’s autobiography. The aim of this article is to assess the value of Reliquiae Baxterianae published in 1696 as a source for the history of the Restoration religious settlement, and to examine Baxter’s agenda and bias. Though this decisive religious settlement underwent various legislative alterations and was enforced with differing degrees of severity during the reign of Charles II, its essential foundations were laid in 1660–1662. It is to these decisive years that we will, therefore, particularly confine our attention. Baxter’s account is illuminating at this point both personally and historically, and gives us an important insight into the mindset of those who were ejected from the national church in the seventeenth century. For all its prolix verbosity, it remains a ‘must read’.

Comparing Baxter to Other Contemporary Sources

To begin with, it is instructive to compare Baxter’s account of the Restoration with other contemporary sources. Debates in the Lords and Commons from this period ‘are among the most badly reported in all seventeenth-century parliaments’; even the ‘government’s own newspapers preferred rather to suppress information than to disseminate it’.2 Where evidence exists of intragovernmental discussion and skirmishing at court ‘it is usually to be found in
the least trustworthy sources: the fading memories and anecdotes of retired politicians, or the gossip of men only on the fringes of the court’.3 Among the most valuable contemporaneous accounts are those from Edward Hyde (Duke of Clarendon and Lord Chancellor),4 Gilbert Burnet (historian and later Bishop of Salisbury),5 and Samuel Pepys (Government administrator and famous diarist).6 As Seaward points out, however, ‘Burnet spent most of
the early 1660s in Scotland or abroad: his History of my own time relies for this period on second-hand information and, written in the 1680s, the rather simplistic views of early Restoration politics which it contains are heavily influenced and distorted by later events’.7 Burnet himself admits his all too limited perspective when he writes that for the first twelve years of Charles II’s reign, ‘I had only such a general knowledge of the affairs of England as I could pick up at a distance’.8

Pepys often has invaluable information from men close to the court, and was indeed ‘the most informative’ of English diarists.9 Yet his own rise to prominence at the heart of English politics did not really occur until after 1662, and especially (given his role as a naval administrator) during the Anglo–Dutch War of 1664-1667.10 So although what he writes of the religious landscape is occasionally of interest,11 it is often merely anecdotal and of dubious trustworthiness or value. He hears, for instance, of a meeting of ‘Episcopalian and Presbyterian Divines’ in October 1660 with the King and Lord Chancellor but can give no details.12 He hears reports that the City was threatening to abandon the King if he did not favour Presbytery, which even he is slightly dubious of,13 although he is clear on 17th August, 1662 about the City’s dissatisfaction with the impending ejection of the puritans.14 There are hints in the diary of the fragility of the Restoration regime throughout 1661-1662, which recollection of daily uncertainty is an indispensable corrective for those who study the period at a distance and might consider what transpired to have been inevitable.

The ‘most detailed and most lucid contemporary exposition of the events and policies of the 1660s’15 comes from Clarendon. His Continuation of the History of the Grand Rebellion was written to defend his reputation and legacy after his fall from power (1667-1672). It has the pungent scent of self-justification about it, and although written with a certain historical awareness and purpose he was forced, because of his exile in France, to rely almost solely
on his own memory without recourse to official documents (or other actors) back in England. Although ‘no study of the 1660s can ignore it’16 because Clarendon was at the very centre of the struggles between church parties, king, and parliament in 1660-1662, it remains a source which must be handled with great care, like most politicians’ biographies.

Baxter’s account of this formative period in church relations compares favourably to these other versions of events.17 He can be praised and criticised for various similar reasons. Unlike Burnet, he was not only in the country at the time but had access to figures at the heart of the establishment. We hear of him meeting the king himself and being appointed his Chaplain-in-Ordinary;18 he is friendly to an extent with Clarendon19 and has meetings with him for
various reasons;20 he knew all the actors in the tussle for supremacy within the new religious order;21 he was elected a member of Convocation,22 and was the leader of the Puritan–Presbyterian group in the negotiations at the Savoy.23 Not only was Baxter a major player, he was, like Pepys, also a meticulous and disciplined administrator and writer. He records many details from events he experienced first-hand, and his account includes a wealth of valuable
documentation. The end result is ‘a sprawling monster’ according to Lamont, ‘containing everything but Baxter’s laundry list’.24 A. G. Matthews comments—

To Matthew Sylvester, his literary executor, he left for publication a mass of autobiographical and other papers, which Sylvester, with a pathetically exaggerated reverence for his eminent colleague’s manuscript, laboriously copied out and published without editorial selection or rearrangement. As a result there appeared in 1696, under the title Reliquiae Baxterianae, a
folio of 800 pages, in which Baxter’s personal story, often of intense interest and value, was interrupted by arid wastes of those casuistical subtleties which were the great divine’s disastrous foible.25

Sylvester’s ‘pathetically exaggerated reverence’ for Baxter’s literary legacy26 may have left us much of merely ‘casuistical’ interest, but it also ensured that various historically useful documents were preserved for posterity. Time and again in tomes such as Cardwell’s Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England or his equally useful History of Conferences or indeed Gould’s Documents Relating to the Settlement of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity of 1662 (the standard sources for documentary evidence of this period)27 it is from Baxter that the text of important papers has been drawn.28 Some of these papers were never published or officially submitted to the committees for which they were drawn up, but they were certainly discussed and argued over.29 At other times, we know who wrote certain things because of Baxter’s identification of them in his account,30 and occasionally we can glimpse the process of amendment and refinement in Presbyterian presentations.31

Besides, pace Matthews, casuistical subtlety was often a feature not just of Baxter’s writing and thought but of the puritan mindset generally; so even in what to the modern reader may appear his dull moments he is not without value for reconstructing the thought-world of a key group in the 1660s. His careful, methodical commentary and collection of documents is of immense importance.

His record of events is often no less helpful. He punctuates his narrative with the record of various events in English and international history to which he is no more accurate an eye-witness than many others or concerning which he had no first-hand access to the facts. So we hear of the Great Fire, the Anglo-French War, and other incidents of this sort. Undoubtedly he is not to be privileged as a source for everything which occurred in the 1660s.32 Yet concerning the religious settlement, he is an exceptionally useful (though far from perfect) source. In his peerless account of the Savoy Conference he writes, ‘You have had the Substance of our wandering Discourses; you are next to have our unprofitable Disputes’.33 There is no commentary on the conference so full and detailed, and which gives such an insight into the
politics and theology of the disagreements there, a snapshot of the puritan prelate
divide. He adds—

Were it not a thing in which an Historian so much concerned in the business is apt to be suspected of partiality, I would here annex a Character of each one that managed this business as they shewed themselves. But because it hath that inconvenience, I will omit it, only telling you what part each one of them acted in all this Work.34

He was certainly conscious of the possibility of writing with historical bias, being one of the major players in these events. Although his character studies of the men involved at Savoy would have been immensely interesting it is no less useful to the historian to know the part played by each of the men.35

The Purpose of Baxter’s Account

Although Baxter was aware of the dangers of writing history with ‘partiality’ he was clearly not free of it entirely. There is an agenda to his work. There is some discussion about the development of the autobiographical genre in seventeenth century England; it is said to owe much to the puritan concern for self-examination, and their desire to have a journal of God’s dealings with both themselves and the nation or church for thanksgiving or encouragement in
later years.36 As far as Pepys was concerned, his diary was for personal pleasure. It was also a way of ‘canalising the stream of experience’,37 taking the often random occurrences in his full and eventful life and reducing them to some kind of order. He must also have had an eye on the future, whether it was to be able to justify his own actions to a Parliamentary committee or to
entertain his future readers (for whom, presumably, he had the manuscript bound), though it was never designed for the press.38

Baxter’s account has similar motivations. Not only in writing up his account some years later,39 but also in his dealings with ‘the opposition’ at the time, he had a keen eye trained on the future. His prescience about the future course of events and the intentions of the ‘anglican’ extremists to exclude the puritans were notable. He made sure they were noted and recorded so that posterity could mark how clearly he knew what was at stake. This is well illustrated by the fact that when offered the chance at Savoy to present written papers rather than having a verbal debate, Baxter leapt at the chance. He gave four reasons for this, the fourth being—

But above all, that else our Cause would never be well understood by our People, or Foreigners, or Posterity; but our Conference and Cause would be misreported and published as the Conference at Hampton Court was to our Prejudice, and none durst contradict it. And that what we said for our Cause, would this way come fully and truly to the Knowledge of England and of other Nations; and that if we refused this Opportunity of leaving upon Record our Testimony against Corruptions, for a just and moderate Reformation, we were never like to have the like in hast again.40

There should be, he says, ‘a standing Witness to Posterity’ of what went on.41 As Baxter rightly notes, the Hampton Court conference of 1604 was the closest precedent for the meeting at the Savoy. That meeting between James I (plus Archbishop and eight Bishops, eight Deans, and one Archdeacon) and a party of four or five moderate Puritans saw the Puritans denied their exceptions against the Prayer Book, though they claimed the support of around 1000
ministers in the Millenary Petition.42

According to Schaff, ‘The accounts of the Hampton Court Conference are mostly derived from the partial report of Dr. William Barlow, Dean of Chester, who was present’.43 Needless to say, his published account was not at all favourable to the Puritans, whose objections he presents as frivolous and unlearned while giving an obsequiously laudatory view of the King and his
Bishops.44

The Hampton Court conference led to the enforcement of new rules of subscription for ministers which ‘caused the deprivation of some puritan ministers’.45 Baxter foresaw that this might well happen again after the Savoy Conference. So the King was reminded that the ceremonies objected to by the puritans had been ‘a Cause of depriving the Church of the Fruit and Benefit which might have been reaped from the Labours of many Learned and Godly
ministers’ who would not be able to sign up to their use. They had been the occasion for ‘great Separations from our Church…[and] may be more likely than ever heretofore to produce the same Inconveniences’.46 He warned that many ministers ‘prefer the Peace of their Consciences in God’s Worship above all their Civil Concernments whatsoever’.47

Baxter’s prescience was not appreciated by either side. Calamy and Reynolds were troubled by the plainness of what Baxter wrote during the conference, and urged him to leave out predictions of what would happen if there was no agreement between the Puritans and the Church of England, fearing it might be heard as a threat. He did not want to leave out such things ‘and thereby made them think me too plain and unpleasing, as never used to the Language or Converse of a Court: But it was not my unskilfulness in a more pleasing Language, but my Reason and Conscience (upon foresight of the Issue) which was the Cause’.48

The Bishops, on the other hand, were also offended by Baxter’s foresight. They would, he said, end up calling him and others ‘Schismaticks’ because they disagreed on some matters which were really of secondary importance— This speech they were offended at, and said, that I sought to make them odious, by representing them as cruel, and Persecutors, as if they intended to silence and cast out so many. And it was one of the greatest matters of Offence against me, that I foreknew and foretold them what they were about to do…I told them that either they do intend such a Course or not: If they do, why should they think us criminal for knowing it? If not, what need had we of all these Disputes with them? which were only to persuade them not to cast out the Ministers and the People on these Accounts. And it was but a few Weeks after this that Bishop Morley himself did silence me, forbidding me to preach in his Diocese (sic), who now took it so heinously that I did foretell it….So dangerous is it to foreknow what cruel Men are about to do.49

Clearly he always had an eye on the momentousness of the occasion and the seriousness of the consequences, acting and writing with that future which he foresaw in mind.50 As he says himself, ‘I thought that the Day and Cause commanded me those two things, which then were objected against me as my Crimes, viz. speaking too boldly, and too long.’51 He was correct about the crucial nature of ‘the Day’, and I do not doubt his insight into the probable result of the negotiations, nor judge his claims to it to be an invention of a later date. Yet he makes as much of it as he can in his written account, for obvious apologetic reasons. He carefully leaves the impression that he was correct to be so forthright, hindsight justifying him since the puritans were in fact ejected and silenced.

Yet, however, another interpretation might partly blame Baxter himself for this, given that he was not the most skilled negotiator in the Presbyterian camp. Radcliff dismissively writes of his leadership and contribution at Savoy that— Ecclesiastical politics, like secular, is the art of the possible. Baxter, a visionary, had little conception of the art. Having irritated his opponents, he was surprised and mortified by their indifference (as it seemed) to his ‘Work’. It does not appear to have occurred to him that the bishops would see in his project the promise not of peace, but of a continuance of strife.52

J. M Lloyd Thomas while more sympathetic concurs when he says, ‘He towered above most of even the leaders of his contemporaries, but he had a fatal gift for dividing his followers and alienating all but a few through-fire and-water admirers…by expecting others to have a like candour [as he had] he acted on smaller minds as a maddening irritant.53 That certainly seems to have been his effect upon the bishops.

Bias in Baxter’s Account

No historian is without bias in re-telling his narrative, least alone one who was also an actor in the story. Occasionally we glimpse Baxter’s more obvious attempts at self-justification, such as when he clears his name from accusations that he was not a Chaplain to the King.54 We see this again when his letter to Clarendon refusing a bishopric is reprinted, and we are given a chance to sample his humility in not only turning it down for himself but suggesting other good men who should be so honoured, and his suggestion that he would be content merely to return to Kidderminster as the curate.55 As N. H. Keeble points out, Baxter must have had only one audience in mind when he wrote: posterity. In large part he sought ‘to exonerate himself’ and ‘set the record straight’.56 Yet his account is more than merely ‘a careful exercise in self-vindication’ as Cooper avers.57 It is also a plea for what he himself calls ‘mere Christianity’—
I am a CHRISTIAN, a MEER CHRISTIAN, of no other Religion; and the Church that I am of is the Christian Church … I am against all Sects and dividing Parties: But if any will call Meer Christians by the name of a Party, because they take up with Meer Christianity, Creed, and Scripture, and will not be of any dividing or contentious Sect, I am of that Party which is so against Parties.58

It is this same ‘meer Christianity’ for which he argues in the Reliquiae Baxterianae. So when discussing the contending parties in debates over church government he writes— each one had some Truths in peculiar, which the other overlookt, or took little notice of, and each had their proper Mistakes which gave advantage to their Adversaries; though all of them had so much truth in common among them as would have made these Kingdoms happy, if it had been unanimously and soberly reduced to practice, by prudent and charitable Men.59

Baxter was called to be part of a Committee to draw up a list of the ‘fundamentals of religion’ as a test for toleration under the Protectorate. ‘I knew how ticklish a Business the Enumeration of Fundamentals was,’ he writes, ‘and of what very ill Consequence it would be if it were ill done.’60 His conclusion therefore was that ‘I would have had the Brethren to have offered
the Parliament the Creed, Lord’s Prayer, and Decalogue alone as our Essentials or Fundamentals; which at least contain all that is necessary to Salvation, and hath been by all the Ancient Churches taken for the Sum of their Religion’.61

It is this brand of moderate Christianity for which he stood during the Restoration period, and which he seeks to recommend in his historical account. His ‘constant concern is to distinguish this central body of moderate opinion from the formal excesses of the Episcopalians on the one hand, and the enthusiastic excesses of fanatics on the other’.62

His agenda here is also observable in the way he categorizes conformists and nonconformists
after the settlement of 1662. His taxonomy looks roughly like this:63 It is always instructive to note how people divide up their world, as it tells us something of their perceptions and prejudices. Baxter’s taxonomy of responses to the 1662 Act of Uniformity is particularly interesting because of the way he presents the different parties and thus positions himself amongst them. He clearly has little real sympathy with the conformists. The Presbyterians who
conformed he described thus: ‘Some were young raw Men that were never Conformists Non-Conformists Presbyterians in possession before the Restoration —those allowed by their bishop
to subscribe ‘in their own sense’ to the settlement, either with vocal reservations or in a paper.
Old School—for the old religious order, anti- Covenant, anti-Wars but couldn’t ‘assent and consent to all things’ now imposed. Latitudinarians—Cambridge men and Arminians, charitable on salvation of heathen, scholarly types. Didn’t like the settlement but not so bothered as to leave the Church over it. Reconcilers —those who abhorred party spirit, were for Ignatius’s
episcopacy but not English diocesan frame, like what’s good in all forms of govt but see bad in
all too. Hearty conformists a. prelate types by conviction who hated nonconformists. b. prelate types who were moderate towards nonconformists (and twisted the sense of subscription somewhat) c. ignorant ones who were just in it for money and power. Presbyterians Independents some good, but some ‘addicted to separations and divisions’, opened
door to Anabaptists and other sects. versed in such kind of Controversies…Some had Wives and Children and Poverty, which were great Temptations to them.’64 The implication is that they
were able to get away with something others could not countenance, or that they were forced into conforming for financial reasons.

Similarly, the Latitudinarians, he declares, place far too charitable a sense on the words of the Oaths and Laws which bind them, and are guilty of ‘Jesuitical Equivocation’.65 This sort of twisting of the sense of the conditions of conformity was also practiced by some of the prelatical Episcopal Party, though many of them were merely ‘raw, or ignorant Readers, or unlearned Men, or sensual scandalous Ones, who would be hot for any thing by which they might rise or be maintained’. Many of the conforming Presbyterians and Latitudinarians he admits are ‘laudable Preachers…their profitable Preaching is used by God’s Providence’.66 Yet he clearly has little empathy for their reasoning.

As for the Nonconformists, Baxter is also careful to make distinctions. Some he knew ‘were for the old Conformity’ pre-Civil War, but could not assent and consent to everything in the new conformity. These were few. A greater number, he says, were ‘Reconcilers’, those ‘of no Sect or Party, but abhorring the very Name of Parties’. They are described positively as peaceful, reasonable, moderate men: they are after all ‘of the Judgment which I have described my self to be in the beginning of this Book’. These, and the Presbyterians, he says ‘(if I be not taken for a partial Witness) are the soberest, and most judicious, unanimous, peaceable, faithful, able, constant Ministers in this Land, or that I have heard or read of, in the Christian World!’67 Yet clearly he is showing here more than a little partiality!

He just as clearly wishes to distinguish himself from many of the Independents. Some of them are ‘serious godly People, some of them moderate’. Yet among them are also reckoned some who are ‘more raw, and self-conceited, and addicted to Separations and Divisions, their Zeal being greater than their Knowledge’. He has in mind some like John Owen who he elsewhere described as a ‘breaker’, but also those who ‘are proper Fanaticks, looking too much to
Revelations within, instead of the Holy Scriptures’.68 Thus we see that Baxter positions himself as a most moderate and peaceable fellow in contradistinction to various extremists on both the left and the right.

Typically he can find something praiseworthy in some of those to either side of him (Latitudinarians and conforming Presbyterians; Presbyterians and some Independents) but not to certain others (intolerable Sects and Independents who are too fond of divisions; carnally-motivated Conformists). Thus we see that his attraction to ‘meer Christianity’ functions as an organising principle throughout his narrative and colours the way he sees and describes events.
Yet Baxter retains a fascinating power to surprise the reader too. Having described what happened on Bartholomew Day and the ejection and silencing of 1800-2000 ministers, he manages not to show immediate sympathy but to censure many of them— when Pastors and People should have been humbled for their Sins, and lamented their former Negligence and Unfruitfulness, most of them were filled with Disdain and Indignation against the Prelates, and were ready with Confidence to say, ‘God will not long suffer so wicked and cruel a Generation of Men: It will, be but a little while till God will pull them down’: And thus Men were puft up by other Mens sinfulness, and kept from a kindly humbling of themselves.69 Thus we see the truth of his assertion that he was no merely partisan thinker or puritan apologist.

Conclusion

To sum up, it is hard to disagree with Tim Cooper’s assessment when he says— In conclusion, the Reliquiae Baxterianae is a complicated source that must be used with extreme care. The point is, though, that it can be used. Armed with a cautious distrust, and aware of potential areas of distortion, we can extract from this difficult book an understanding of Richard Baxter that is both accurate and illuminating.70 The Reliquiae Baxterianae is equally useful, when handled with equal sensitivity, as a source for the Restoration religious settlement. Despite its
flaws, it remains the premier and vital starting point for any serious engagement with this crucial episode in English Church history. A reading of the original or of one of the more modern abridgements is highly recommended.

Revd. LEE GATISS is Associate Minister of St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate in the City
of London, and editor of The Theologian: The Internet Journal for Integrated
Theology.

1. The Tragedy of 1662: The Ejection and Persecution of the Puritans (London:
Latimer Trust, 2007).
2. P. Seaward, The Cavalier Parliament and the Reconstruction of the Old Regime,
1661-1667 (Cambridge: CUP, 1989), p. 6.
3. Ibid., p. 7.
4. As Lord Chancellor, Clarendon was Charles II’s most important minister at a time
when the role and title of ‘Prime Minister’ was not yet developed. His account of
1660-1662 is found in The Life of Edward Earl of Clarendon Lord High
Chancellor of England and Chancellor of the University of Oxford: in which is
included a Continuation of his History of the Grand Rebellion New Edition Vol. 1
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1827) pp. 311ff. (vol. 1 p. 311 to vol. 2 p. 202).
5. Burnet’s account first appeared in 1723 and is found in Bishop Burnet’s History of
His own Time Vol. 1 (Edinburgh: Hamilton, Balfour, and Neill, 1753) Book 2,
pages 129-285 or in the New Edition of 1850 (London: William S. Orr & Co,
1850), pp. 60-133.
6. The standard short (1096 page) edition is R. Latham, The Shorter Pepys from The
Diary of Samuel Pepys, a new and complete transcription edited by Robert Latham
and William Matthews (London: Bell and Hyman, 1985) pages 1-248.
7. Seaward, op. cit., p. 7. Burnet’s time abroad was spent profitably; he learned
Hebrew at the feet of a rabbi in Amsterdam.
8. G. Burnet, History of his Own Time (London:William S. Orr&Co, 1850) Vol. 1, p. 60.
9. Latham, op.cit., page xxxviii.
10. Ibid., p. xxvi.
11. It is interesting, for instance, to hear him report on 7th July 1660 that this was the
first time he had ever heard ‘singing-men in Surplices in my life’—the Church of
England was re-establishing its old ritual (ibid., p. 61 cf. p. 145). On the 29th July
(p. 67) he complains that at one church service with the Bishop of Salsbury (sic) the
sermon was ‘cold’ and ‘the ceremonies did not please me, they do so overdo them’.
(see similar comments on 7th Oct., pp. 84-85). By November 1660 his minister at
St. Olave’s is beginning ‘to nibble at the Common Prayer… But the people have
beene so little used to it that they could not tell what to answer’ (4th Nov., p. 91).
12. Ibid., 22nd Oct., 1660, p. 88. His patron and source here, The Earl of Sandwich,
was “a perfect Sceptique” and not interested in such details. He also reports briefly
on the restoration of the Bishops to the Lords (p. 137).
13. Ibid., 26th July 1661 (p. 147).
14. Ibid., 17th August 1662, pp. 218-19. He also narrates the festivities on the Thames
the following Saturday, with 10,000 barges and boats, which must have been a
great distraction to the populace (p. 221).
15. Seaward, op.cit., p. 7.
16. Ibid., p. 8.
17. Baxter’s account is found in Reliquiae Baxterianae (London: Matthew Sylvester,
1696), Part II ,. 215-430. I am grateful to Wendy Bell (Oak Hill College Library)
for extended access to the first edition of this work from the Latimer Collection.
18. Reliquiae Baxterianae Part II p. 229.
19. E.g. ibid., p. 300: after a letter from the Lord Chancellor seeking favour for Baxter,
he writes, ‘Can any thing be more serious and cordial and obliging than all this: For
a Lord Chancellour that hath the Business of the Kingdom upon his hand…to take
up his time so much and often about so low a Person’.
20. They had many meetings together according to Part II p. 265, and he had ‘frequent
Business with the Lord Chancellour’ according to Part II p. 279.
21. His interactions with the Episcopal players is outlined in Baxter, op.cit., Part II p.
363-4. His knowledge of the puritans (both Presbyterian, Congregational and
otherwise) is seen in his lists of ejected ministers and descriptions of them in Part
III, pp. 90-98. His acquaintance with many other substantial people is seen in the
collection of letters mingled into the account, for which see Baxter's index under L
for correspondence with John Owen, Amyraut, Dr. Manton, the Government of
New England, Dr. Bates, as well as letters to and from Earls and various Ladies of
substance.
22. He and Calamy were elected according to Baxter, op.cit., Part II p. 333 but were
not able to take their places, being ‘excused’ by the Bishop of London. The election
itself was loaded in various ways in favour of the ‘Diocesan Party’, says Baxter.
23. Baxter refers to his lead role in speaking at Savoy in Baxter, op.cit., p. 364: “As for
myself, the reason why I spake so much was because it was the desire of my
Brethren, and I was loth to expose them to the hatred of the Bishops…”
24. W. Lamont, “The Religious Origins of the English Civil War,” in G. Schochet (ed.),
Religion, Resistance, and Civil War. Proceedings of the Folger Institute Center for
the History of British Political Thought, Vol. 3 (Washington, DC, 1990), p. 6 as
quoted in Cooper, op. cit., p. 198.
25. A. G. Matthews, Calamy Revised: Being a Revision of Edmund Calamy's Account
of the Ministers and Others Ejected and Silenced, 1660-1662 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1988 [1934]), pp. xvi-xvii. These comments are not quite fair. It is the book’s immense size which led to Calamy’s abridgement and subsequent enlargement of the list of ejected ministers which stands behind Matthews’s own work. And yet Baxter is far from comprehensive in all that he records—hence my difficult, for example, in identifying him as the author of the letter from ‘A.B.’ to a ‘person of quality’ in The Tragedy of 1662, p. 27, fn. 83.
26. J. M. Lloyd Thomas, citing Calamy’s report of Sylvester’s treatment of the manuscript as almost a sacred thing not to be tampered with (he was ‘cramped by a sort of superstition’) says that Sylvester ‘regarded the MS. of the Autobiography with somewhat of the veneration which is offered to the relic of a saint’ in The Autobiography of Richard Baxter edited by J. M. Lloyd Thomas (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1925), p. x. He is also careful to point out that even Sylvester did suppress and modify some portions of the text he received, so that editorial
intervention, while not intrusive, was ‘far from negligible’ in some places.
27. E. Cardwell, Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England being a
collection of injunctions, declarations, orders, articles of inquiry, &c. from the year
1546 to 1716; with notes historical and explanatory (Oxford: OUP, 1839). E. Cardwell, A History of Conferences and Other Proceedings Connected with the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer; from the year 1558 to the year 1690 (Oxford: OUP, 1841). G. Gould, Documents Relating to the Settlement of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity of 1662 (London: W. Kent & Co, 1862).
28. E.g., in Gould’s collection there are 35 documents and official papers (warrants, petitions, declarations, Acts of Parliament etc). Of these, 2 are taken from Clarendon’s Life, 8 are Acts or Proceedings of Parliament, 6 are from various other sources and more than half (19) are taken directly from Reliquiae Baxterianae.
29. See, for example, A Defence of our Proposals to His Majesty for Agreement in Matters of Religion in Baxter, op. cit., pp. 248-58 and Gould, op. cit., pp. 39-63 which Gould notes (quoting Baxter pp. 241-42) was never seen in the whole grand debate at the Savoy although it contains very useful evidence of the puritans’ objections to much of the ensuing church settlement.
30. E.g. The Preface to The Rejoinder of the Ministers to the Answer of the Bishops in Gould, op.cit., pp. 201-346 was written by Calamy according to Baxter, op.cit., p. 357, §229.
31. See, for example, the passages struck out of their petition to the King as presented at the end of the Savoy Conference which are retained in Baxter’s original version, as noted in Gould, op. cit., pp. 379-85.
32. Evelyn and Pepys are more useful chroniclers of the Fire and the War, for instance.
33. Baxter, op.cit., Part II p. 346.
34. Baxter, op.cit., Part II p. 363.
35. Baxter, op. cit., pp. 363-4.
36. See Keeble’s introduction to the Everyman edition of The Autobiography of Richard Baxter abridged by J. M. Lloyd Thomas, edited with an introduction by N. H.
Keeble (London : J. M. Dent & Sons, 1985), pp. xxvi-xxvii. He adds on page xxvii that in William Matthews’s bibliography of British Autobiographies there are 2 works before 1500, 14 for the 16th century, and some 200 for the 17th century. Latham, op. cit., p. xxxiii also notes that ‘the practice of keeping diaries’ from Elizabethan times onwards was stimulated by ‘the habit of self-examination encouraged by Protestantism’.
37. A vivid phrase from Latham’s introduction to The Shorter Pepys, p. xxxiv, and an
apt one for a Navy man.
38. According to Latham, op. cit., page xxxiv Pepys often drafted what he was going to write in a different book before he wrote up the final version in his diary. His diary was not just a stream of consciousness, therefore, but a deliberate attempt at literary, historical record which must surely have had a wider purpose than to titillate himself in old age with his former articulacy.
39. Much of Reliquiae Baxterianae has the hallmark of having been originally a series of diary entries, or at least to have been based on notes taken at the time of the events described. It was written up in stages some years later and finally published in 1696, five years after Baxter’s death. According to Cooper most of it was written in the mid-1660s. T. Cooper, Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth Century England: Richard Baxter and Antinomianism (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2001), p. 198.
40. Baxter, op. cit,. p. 306.
41. Ibid., p. 306. He often claims to have foreseen what would happen; see also page 334 where he says, “And because I foresaw what was like to be the end of our Conference…”.
42. See G. Davies, The Early Stuarts 1603-1660 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1959), pp. 69-70.
43. P. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996 reprint of 1931 edition), p. 708, fn. 2. Barlow’s account was published in 1604 and again in 1638.
44. Cf. also E. Cardwell, A History of Conferences and Other Proceedings Connected with the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer; from the year 1558 to the year 1690 (Oxford: OUP, 1841) ch. IV parts III-V which contain three short accounts
(including Barlow’s). See especially p. 184, ll. 24-28 where he describes some of their objections as “very frivolous” and is reminded of the saying that “A puritan The Autobiography of a ‘Meer Christian’ is a protestant frayed out of his wits.”
45. See Davies, op. cit., p. 71 who adds “The sympathy that naturally goes out to those who suffer because of conscientious scruples should not be allowed to obscure the correctness of Bancroft’s decision that ministers of the church must loyally accept its constitution or lose their benefices.”
46. Baxter, op. cit., p. 235.
47. Ibid., p. 236. Cf. Acknowledgement of some Ministers of London for the Declaration in Gould, op. cit., p. 102: “The liberty of our consciences, and the free exercise of our ministry in the work of our great Lord and Master, for the conversion of souls, ought to be, and are, more dear to us than all the profits and preferments of this world.”
48. Baxter, op. cit., p. 265 (emphasis mine).
49. Ibid., pp. 345-6. The conclusion that many would be silenced and cast out had been mooted before with Morley (see p. 340), who discussed it freely and countered with supposed examples of clerical suffering at the hands of the puritans previously.
50. Cf. also page 278 for further instances of writing with posterity in mind.
51. Ibid., p. 364.
52. Ratcliff, E. C., “The Savoy Conference and the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer,” in Nuttall, Geoffrey F. and Chadwick, Owen, From Uniformity to Unity 1662-1962 (London: SPCK, 1962), p. 127. Cf. also p. 108: “While, therefore, he sincerely desired accommodation with the bishops, he was not the most likely figure to bring it about, or to promote it.”
53. Lloyd Thomas, op.cit., pp. xxvi-xxvii. His comments about his friends were equally candid. Of Reynolds he writes (p. 364), ‘He was a solid, honest Man, but through mildness and excess of timorous reverence to great Men, altogether unfit to contend with them.’ The comment of George Marsden on J. Gresham Machen, another great ecclesiastical politician who spoke with often brutal candour, is pertinent here: ‘You can imagine that, if someone says things like this about one’s friends, that it might be easy to make enemies!’ Cf. G. M. Marsden, Understanding
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), p. 187.
54. He narrates how the honour was conferred upon him on p. 229 (where the certificate he received at the time is reprinted), and how it was doubted (and he attacked for claiming it) on pp. 279-80.
55. Ibid, pp. 282-3.
56. See N. H. Keeble, “Autobiographer as Apologist: Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696)”,
Prose Studies, 9 (1986), pp. 110-111 as quoted in Cooper, op. cit., p. 198.
57. Cooper, op. cit., p. 198.
58. Baxter, Church History, “What History is credible…”, f. b1 as quoted in Keeble’s ntroduction to The Autobiography of Richard Baxter, p. xx.
59. Baxter, Reliquiae Baxterianae, p. 139.
60. Baxter, op.cit., p. 197.
61. Ibid., p. 198.
62. Keeble’s introduction, op.cit., p. xxviii.
63. The following table I derive from Baxter’s descriptions of ‘the true state of the Conformists and Nonconformists in England at this time’ on pp. 386-87. He continues to describe them and their several arguments in the subsequent pages. On this see also the helpful J. Pearce, Bishops and Baxter,” Churchman 112/3 (1998): 261-2.
64. Baxter, op. cit., p. 386.
65. For the phrase, see p. 421 where he also says ‘Charity is not blind, nor will it prove a fit Cover for a Lie’. For the similar phrase ‘Latitudinarian Equivocation’, see p. 427.
66. Ibid., p. 387.
67. Ibid., p. 387.
68. Baxter, op. cit., p. 387.
69. Baxter, op. cit., p. 385.
70. Cooper, op. cit., p. 201.

Canons of Dordt

We include a photo of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. John Whitgift, who agreed with these canons.

Canons of Dordt, week 35


August 28, 2009



The Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs



Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

Who teach that corrupt and natural man can make such good use of common grace (by which they mean the light of nature) or of the gifts remaining after the fall that he is able thereby gradually to obtain a greater grace — evangelical or saving grace — as well as salvation itself; and that in this way God, for his part, shows himself ready to reveal Christ to all people, since he provides to all, to a sufficient extent and in an effective manner, the means necessary for the revealing of Christ, for faith, and for repentance.

For Scripture, not to mention the experience of all ages, testifies that this is false: He makes known his words to Jacob, his statutes and his laws to Israel; he has done this for no other nation, and they do not know his laws (Ps. 147:19-20); In the past God let all nations go their own way (Acts 14:16); They (Paul and his companions) were kept by the Holy Spirit from speaking God’s word in Asia; and When they had come to Mysia, they tried to go to Bithynia, but the Spirit would not allow them to (Acts 16:6-7).

Canons of Dort. Third and Fourth Heads.

The Synod of Dort, 1618-1619, was a Dutch Synod with eight foreign countries and their Reformed representatives invited, including Anglican Churchmen: George Carleton, Joseph Hall, Thomas Goad, John Davenant, and Lancelot Andrewes. The Arminians were led by their champion Simon Episcopius and the famous jurist Hugo Grotius. The Arminians asserted conditional election based on forseen faith, universal atonement, resistable grace, and final losses and lapsibility of the elect. After long patience and much expostulation the Arminians, the Synod drew up its canons. Bishop George Carleton (Lllandaff, Chichester), though asserting episcopancy (as if that were the issue) concurred with the canons. Bishop Joseph Hall (Exeter, Norwich) agreed with them and tried to press for their adoption in the Church of England. Subsequently, Archbishop Laud sent spies to Norwich because of Hall's "low church views" and "Calvinism." Also, King James 1 favored the Dordrectian canons. Thomas Goad, previously a Calvinist, returned to England an Arminian and lost some preferrments as a result. Bishop John Davenant (Salisbury) turned out to be an Amyraldian, but that was still too much for Mr. Laud; Davenant opposed and debated Arminians. Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (Chichester, Ely, Winchester), overseer of the KJV-project, had earlier gained preferrments under Sir Francis Walsingham, the staunch Calvinistic spymaster for Queen Elizabeth (an eye-witness to Antichrist's pogrom in the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France...Walsingham barely escaped Paris). Andrewes praised Calvin, although his Eucharistic views were two steps backwards from the English Reformers. Here are the Canons, the Third and Fourth Heads.

Canons of Dordt, week 33

August 14, 2009

The Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

I Who teach that, properly speaking, it cannot be said that original sin in itself is enough to condemn the whole human race or to warrant temporal and eternal punishments.

For they contradict the apostle when he says: Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death passed on to all men because all sinned (Rom. 5:12); also: The guilt followed one sin and brought condemnation (Rom. 5:16); likewise: The wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23).

Having set forth the orthodox teaching, the Synod rejects the errors of those

II Who teach that the spiritual gifts or the good dispositions and virtues such as goodness, holiness, and righteousness could not have resided in man’s will when he was first created, and therefore could not have been separated from the will at the fall.

For this conflicts with the apostle’s description of the image of God in Ephesians 4:24, where he portrays the image in terms of righteousness and holiness, which definitely reside in the will.

Canons of Dordt: Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine

http://dailyconfession.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/sod_w31-2/

Canons of Dordt, week 31

July 31, 2009

The Third and Fourth Heads of Doctrine: Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs

Article 15: Responses to God’s Grace

God does not owe this grace to anyone. For what could God owe to one who has nothing to give that can be paid back? Indeed, what could God owe to one who has nothing of his own to give but sin and falsehood? Therefore the person who receives this grace owes and gives eternal thanks to God alone; the person who does not receive it either does not care at all about these spiritual things and is satisfied with himself in his condition, or else in self-assurance foolishly boasts about having something which he lacks. Furthermore, following the example of the apostles, we are to think and to speak in the most favorable way about those who outwardly profess their faith and better their lives, for the inner chambers of the heart are unknown to us. But for others who have not yet been called, we are to pray to the God who calls things that do not exist as though they did. In no way, however, are we to pride ourselves as better than they, as though we had distinguished ourselves from them.

Article 16: Regeneration’s Effect

However, just as by the fall man did not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, and just as sin, which has spread through the whole human race, did not abolish the nature of the human race but distorted and spiritually killed it, so also this divine grace of regeneration does not act in people as if they were blocks and stones; nor does it abolish the will and its properties or coerce a reluctant will by force, but spiritually revives, heals, reforms, and — in a manner at once pleasing and powerful — bends it back. As a result, a ready and sincere obedience of the Spirit now begins to prevail where before the rebellion and resistance of the flesh were completely dominant. It is in this that the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consists. Thus, if the marvelous Maker of every good thing were not dealing with us, man would have no hope of getting up from his fall by his free choice, by which he plunged himself into ruin when still standing upright.