Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]

Few persons could have been subjected in early life to a greater variety of influence than Richard Baxter. His father having been a gambler, became, before the birth of his illustrious son, a pious man, and trained up his offspring in godly discipline. Whilst over his home a religious atmosphere diffused itself, the people in the village spent the greater part of most Sundays in dancing round the Maypole. After four successive curates of worthless character, there followed a grave and eminent man who expected to be made a Bishop. Having been placed under each of them at school, Richard afterwards had for his tutor a Royalist chaplain, who did all in his power to make the youth hate Puritanism. Baxter’s religious impressions were deepened by reading the works of a Jesuit, which an evangelical Protestant had revised, and by the perusal of evangelical books from the pens of Sibbs and Perkins. The youth’s first associations in life were with the Episcopal Church, and he was then a Conformist in practice and principle. He studied Richard Hooker, and did not come in contact with Nonconformists, until just before he attained his majority. He spent, as a young man, a month at Whitehall, with the chance of becoming a courtier. Accident brought him within an inch of the grave, and he suffered so much from illness, that at twenty he had the symptoms of fourscore. No classic, no mathematician, he plunged into the study of logic and metaphysics, and soon formed an intimate acquaintance with Aquinas and Scotus, Durandus and Ockham. He had omnivorous habits of reading, and it is curious to notice the variety of authors whom he cites or enumerates. He was a self-taught man, and when Anthony Wood inquired of him by letter, whether he had been educated at Oxford, Baxter replied, “As to myself, my faults are no disgrace to any University, for I was of none: I have little but what I had out of books, and inconsiderable helps of country tutors. Weakness and pain helped me to study how to die: that set me on studying how to live; and that set me on studying the doctrine from which I must fetch my motives and comforts; and beginning with necessaries, I proceeded to the lesser integrals by degrees, and now am going to see that which I have lived and studied for.”[535]

By bearing in mind these remarkable facts, we shall be assisted in accounting for some peculiarities of opinions in this remarkable man. There was a manifold character in his theology corresponding with the manifold influences which moulded his religion, and we may trace the effects of his education in both the excellencies and defects of his numerous writings. In a literary point of view, they are strikingly different from those of Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. He is, in his doctrinal discussions, often as tedious as they, and sometimes more provoking with his endless distinctions, but, in the practical application of his theological principles, he exerts a charm which neither of those contemporaries could ever rival. His masculine style, just the outgrowth of his thought, just the natural skin, pure and transparent, which covers it, has been the admiration of popular readers and practised critics. It has been praised by Addison and Johnson; it has been felt and appreciated by thousands of unlettered people. We detect in Baxter, no rhetorical tricks, no striving to shine for the sake of shining, no waving of the scarlet flag, no “taking out his vocabulary for an airing:” and yet for fullness of expression, for a rich flow of words, for occasional felicity of diction, for poetry in prose, he surpasses all his compeers, except Jeremy Taylor: and in directness, force, and genuine fervour, as to a glowing heat of the affections, which is more intense than the eloquence of the imagination, as to words which come rolling out like balls of white fire, the great Church orator must give place to the Nonconformist Divine. If immense popularity, if the possession of a spell which can hold fast minds of all orders, be a test of genius, then Baxter must be allowed to have possessed it in a high degree. In activity of thought and in keenness of perception, in the grasp of his knowledge and in the retentiveness of his memory, in dialectic skill and in logical fencing, Baxter is acknowledged to have had no superior, if any equal, in his own day, and he would have been worthy of a lot amongst the mediæval schoolmen, to whose list of doctors his might have added another characteristic name. But such qualities have their disadvantages. In this instance, they led their possessor to travel over such an immense field of inquiry, to meddle with so many topics, to dispute with so many men, to make so many distinctions without any difference, at least such as less acute minds can discern, that it is difficult to gather together and harmonize his opinions, and to say on certain points what he believed, and what he did not. It is easy for a man of one-sided views to be consistent; but who that loves truth for the truth’s sake, and wishes to see as much of it as is possible in this world of imperfect knowledge, will value consistency of that kind? Baxter was not one-sided, but strove to look at every subject on its many sides, if it has many; and to reconcile aspects of truth which to hasty and prejudiced thinkers seem contradictory. Hence he has given occasion to the charge of inconsistency. His opinions have been a battle-ground for critics ever since he left the world; and in this respect he has attained a position honourable in one point of view, dubious in another—like that of Origen. A great thinker, a great debater, an eloquent expounder of his own convictions, he has been pronounced a heretic by some members of his own Church, and his orthodoxy has been endorsed by members of Churches not his own. It is a curious illustration of the difficulty of deciding what were Baxter’s sentiments on some intricate subjects, that his most copious and intelligent biographer should first say, that he was neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian—should next assert his claims to be considered a faithful follower of the Synod of Dort,—and should finally pronounce this verdict: “Baxter was probably such an Arminian as Richard Watson, and as much a Calvinist as the late Dr. Edward Williams.”

After such a verdict, I cannot hope successfully to thread the mazes of Baxter’s theology. Yet there are a few conclusions which appear to me undeniable. He took a Calvinistic view of the Divine decrees. Several passages, probably, might be found in his writings apparently inconsistent with the Genevan doctrine, but what convinces me that he held it substantially, is not so much his confession, that he accepted the decisions of the Synod of Dort (upon which his biographer just mentioned insists), for Baxter sometimes interpreted statements after a manner of his own,—as the fact that in his treatise On Conversion, when dealing with such as say, “Those that God will save shall be saved, whatsoever they be, and those that He will damn, shall be damned,”—instead of cutting the matter short, as an Arminian would do, by denying the Calvinistic dogma altogether, our Divine goes on to guard against the abuses of that dogma; and to argue that people should act in relation to the decrees of Grace, as they do respecting the decrees of Providence. He finishes by saying just what Calvinists say,—“God hath not ordinarily decreed the end without the means, and if you will neglect the means of salvation it is a certain mark that God hath not decreed you to salvation.”[536]

Baxter’s opinions of the efficacy of Christ’s death resemble those of John Goodwin, rather than those of Thomas Goodwin. For he remarks, “God hath made a universal deed of gift of Christ and life to all the world, on condition that they will but accept the offer. In this testament or promise, or act of oblivion, the sins of all the world are conditionally pardoned, and they are conditionally justified, and reconciled to God.”[537]

Baxter seems to have believed that whilst those who are ultimately saved, are saved by the sovereign and gracious purpose of the Almighty—in other words, by Divine election—there is a provision made by the mediation of Christ, sufficient for the wants of all men, and of which all men, if they pleased, could avail themselves; and in this respect his views do not materially differ from those expressed by Dr. Edward Williams, in his treatise on The Divine Equity and Sovereignty; or from those taught by Andrew Fuller in several of his publications. A somewhat similar via media was pursued by Amyraut, the French Divine. Yet it is, I believe, not an uncommon impression that Baxter went beyond this, and supposed that whilst some are elected to eternal life by a special Divine decree, others are saved through a general provision of Divine grace. I do not pretend to have read all Baxter’s works: but in those with which I am acquainted, I find no trace of such an opinion, neither does it appear in Orme’s careful summary of Baxter’s theological writings. It is a curious fact, however, that an idea of the kind attributed to the Puritan was expressed, at the Council of Trent, by a Papist, Ambrosius Catarinus, of Siena,[538] and that a similar idea is exhibited in the writings of Fowler, the Latitudinarian.[539]

Baxter did not adopt the doctrine of imputation held by Thomas Goodwin and John Owen. He remarks:—

“Most of our ordinary Divines say, that Christ did as properly obey in our room or stead, as He did suffer in our stead, and that in God’s esteem, and in point of law, we were in Christ’s obeying and suffering, and so, in Him we did both perfectly fulfil the commands of the law by obedience, and the threatenings of it by bearing the penalty; and thus (say they) is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us (viz.)—His passive righteousness for the pardon of our sins and delivering us from the penalty, His active righteousness for the making of us righteous, and giving us a title to the Kingdom—and some say the habitual righteousness of His human nature, instead of our own habitual righteousness—yea, some add the righteousness of the Divine nature also. This opinion (in my judgment) containeth a great many of mistakes.”[540]

Faith, Baxter explains as “both a general trust in God’s revelations and grace, and a special trust in Jesus Christ,” adding, “I have oft proved this justifying faith to be no less than our unfeigned taking Christ for our Saviour, and becoming true Christians according to the tenour of the baptismal covenant.” The characteristic nature of Christian faith he further represents as consisting of trust in a personal Saviour, inclusive of an assenting trust by the understanding; a consenting trust by the will; and a practical trust by the executive powers.[541] The linking of the exercises of faith upon three faculties in human nature may be observed both in Goodwin and in Owen; but Baxter seems to have proceeded further than they in carrying out the practical relations of faith, and in this respect to have occupied ground not unlike that of Thorndike.[542]

Howe’s Puritanism might almost be said to have reached him by descent; but his extraordinary thoughtfulness, and his singular originality, require us to believe, that far from blindly accepting the inheritance, he carefully investigated the whole subject, and became a Puritan from conviction. His father, appointed to the incumbency of Loughborough by Archbishop Laud, afterwards displeased his patron, by refusing to comply with his requirements, and was consequently ejected. The father took the son to Ireland, whence he was driven back by the rebellion; after which, John Howe, before he proceeded to Oxford, went to Cambridge, and there, from the “Platonic tincture” of his mind, became associated with Cudworth, More, and John Smith, from whom his Platonic tastes received the highest culture. The great Pagan theologue, however, exerted a more powerful influence upon his sympathizing disciple, than did any of these under-masters; for Howe carefully read Plato for himself. He had “conversed closely with the heathen moralists and philosophers; had perused many of the writings of the schoolmen, and several systems and common places of the Reformers. Above all, he had compiled for himself a system of theology, from the Sacred Scriptures alone: a system which, as he was afterwards heard to say, he had seldom seen occasion to alter.”[543]

His defects of style have robbed him of that meed of honour to which as a theologian he is entitled. He exhibits an utter neglect of the art of composition, like a man of great wealth, thoroughly careless about his attire, and falls into a habit of writing most inharmonious periods, perhaps for want of a musical ear. His frequent poverty of expression, and his numerous and intricate subdivisions, are failings in their effect vastly heightened by the unaccountably strange method of punctuation which he adopted himself, or left his printer to adopt for him.[544] Yet his works present, in numerous instances, the most felicitous phrases and the choicest epithets, and only less frequently does he, under the inspiration of his genius, pour forth sonorous sentences, with an organ-like swell, in keeping with the magnificent ideas which they were employed to convey. After all Howe’s drawbacks, I have often risen from the perusal of his works with feelings similar to those of a traveller, who, at the end of his journey, charmed with the remembrance of the scenes he has visited, forgets the ruggedness of the road, and the inconvenience of his conveyance, however unpleasant they might have been at the moment they were experienced. The originality and compass of Howe’s mind, and the calmness and moderation of his temper, must ever inspire sympathy, and awaken admiration in reflective readers: his Platonic and Alexandrian culture commends him to the philosophical student, and the practical tendency of his religious thinking endears him to all Christians. His works contain no treatises on Faith, on Justification, on Election, or Particular Redemption. Though essentially evangelical, Howe’s writings are pervaded by a tone of thought which varies from that which is predominant in Puritan literature: and I may add that, as in Baxter, so in Howe, yet not from exactly the same cause, or in the same measure, heresy hunters, if their scent be keen, may discover passages open to exception.

In the Blessedness of the Righteous, when describing those who bear that character, instead of dwelling upon justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ, after the manner of Goodwin or Owen, Howe exhibits chiefly the moral view of religion, that “it can be understood to be nothing but the impress of the Gospel upon a man’s heart and life; a conformity in spirit and practice to the revelation of the will of God in Jesus Christ; a collection of graces exerting themselves in suitable actions and deportments towards God and man.” Calamy justly says that Howe “did not consider religion so much a system of doctrines, as a Divine discipline to reform the heart and life.” He carries out the idea of Christianity being a law, “with evangelical mitigations and indulgences.” He speaks of the law of faith, and insists upon that part of the Gospel revelation which contains and discovers our duty—what we are to be and do, in order to our blessedness.[545] Some of his expressions would scarcely have been used by the two Divines we have just mentioned; yet, without going into a theological discussion on the question, I may observe, that Howe certainly believed most firmly in all which is essential to the doctrine of justification by faith, and disposed of the opposite doctrine in a summary way by saying, “To suppose the law of works, in its own proper form and tenor, to be still obliging, is to suppose all under hopeless condemnation, inasmuch as all have sinned.” The spirit of his teaching throughout must be remembered, in order that we may qualify, somewhat, certain expressions which seem to look favourably towards such schemes as were advocated by Thorndike and Bull. The drift of Howe’s theology was different from theirs, notwithstanding an occasional resemblance of phraseology; and whilst I admit that some of his passages on this subject require to be carefully guarded, and others are open to exception, I must say that he did immense service to the cause of Gospel truth, first, by insisting upon the present dispensation of the Divine will as a form of moral and righteous government for men in general, not simply an expedient for gathering together the elect; and, next, by insisting upon the responsibility of man, as well as upon the freeness of the grace of God. In my opinion, Howe brought out—and Baxter did the same—phases of truth in relation to man as a responsible being, as a subject morally accountable to the universal Governor of the world, too much neglected by many of their Puritan brethren.

The comprehensiveness of Howe’s mind, the harmony of his own spiritual life, and the essentially practical character of his instructions, appear in his Carnality of Religious Contention, especially in the following passage relative to the two great blessings of the Gospel which he distinguishes whilst he unites them:—In fine, therefore, the Apostle “makes it his business to evidence to them that both their justification and their sanctification must be conjoined, and arise together out of one and the same root,—Christ Himself,—and by faith in Him, without the works of the law, as that which must vitally unite them with Him; and that thereby they should become actually interested in all His fulness—that fulness of righteousness which was to be found only in Him, and nowhere but in Him; and withal, in that fulness of spirit and life and holy influence, which also was only in Him; so as that the soul, being united by this faith with Christ, must presently die to sin and live to God. And at the same time, when He delivered a man from the law as dead to it, He became to him a continual living spring of all the duty which God did by His holy rule require and call for, and render the whole life of such a man a life of devotedness to God.”[546]

The Popish theory of justification, which confounds it with personal righteousness, and the approaches made in that direction by Anglican Divines, drove the Puritans to an opposite extreme; and the distinction they sometimes make between justification and sanctification amounts almost to a separation; but Howe—following St. Paul, who seems never to have thought of the one without having in his mind at the same time the thought of the other—whilst distinguishing between them, justly presents the two as conjoint blessings, “arising together out of one and the same root,” or as being, in reality, two harmonious aspects of one simple salvation.

Howe nowhere maintains the doctrine of particular redemption, but he exhibits the expiatory sacrifice of Christ with great clearness, and introduces an argument to the effect “that to account for the sufferings of the perfectly holy and innocent Messiah is made abundantly more difficult by denying the Atonement.”[547]

In his Redeemer’s Tears wept over Lost Souls, he does not enter at all into the Predestinarian controversy—a circumstance which distinguishes him from High Calvinistic theologians, who would not have failed largely to discuss the question of the Divine decrees, together with the Divine foreknowledge. But Howe rigorously confines himself to a solution of that broad difficulty which presses equally upon Arminians and Calvinists, supposing that both believe, as they generally do, that God is omniscient, and that man is responsible. The author’s simple purpose is to vindicate the Divine sincerity and wisdom, in employing methods of moral persuasion with His intelligent and accountable creatures, when He discerns beforehand that they will prove of no avail, in offering invitations of mercy which He knows will never be accepted, and in urging admonitions and rebukes to which He foresees many will turn an unlistening ear and an obdurate heart. The reticence of Howe, in this and in other parts of his writings, upon subjects which present a fascinating attraction to speculative minds, however incapable they may be of grappling with the objects towards which they are so irresistibly drawn, is worthy of special notice, and indicates a resemblance between him, in this respect, and Robert Hall, who regarded Howe with intense admiration.

One of the characteristic imperfections of that age in relation to theology is found in the endeavour to define and explain many things which are utterly beyond the reach of human comprehension. Anglican and Puritan, in almost equal degrees, boldly ventured into regions of speculation, and mistook for solid ground what really is but cloud-land. Metaphysical conclusions of their own were by their imagination transformed into Divine verities; and they often overlooked the grand distinction between what revelation plainly teaches, and what can be only inferred from its teaching. John Howe is singularly free from all presumptuous intermeddling with subjects which lie beyond the ken of mortals; and, although versed in the highest philosophy, beyond many of his contemporaries—and, indeed, because he was thoroughly imbued with the purest spirit of philosophy—he knew when to stop in his path of inquiry, and how to distinguish between the wisdom of God and the reasonings of man.

Both Baxter and Howe were pre-eminently earnest in their endeavours to promote the moral righteousness of Christians, and to exhibit its production in human character and human life as the grand aim of the Gospel of Jesus. Other Puritans, more Calvinistic in their modes of thinking, inculcated holiness with emphasis and effect, and might imply, throughout their instructions, that pardon and justification were means to an end, that end being the conformity of the saints to the will of God and the image of Christ; but no teacher of that class impresses my mind with the positive conviction of such being the true order of the great redemptive process, to the same extent, and with the same depth, as do the two theologians now under review. They most effectually relieve at least their part in Puritan Divinity from the charge, and from the suspicion, of subordinating that which is moral in religion to that which is speculative, that which is personal to that which is relative, that which is practical to that which is emotional. They give the true perspective in theology, and place subjects of belief in their position one towards another, more accurately perhaps than any of their contemporaries. They exhibit the sinner’s forgiveness and acceptance with God, and his adoption into the Divine family of the Church, and his heirship of celestial felicities, not as the ultimatum of Christian object and desire, but as spiritual conditions and circumstances essential to the growth and maturity of that moral and God-like life which is begotten in the human soul at the hour of the new birth by the Holy Spirit. No one, who reflects upon a scheme of theology constructed after this type, can regard it as defective in moral power, or as betraying the interests of perfect righteousness. To place righteousness in the position of an end, rather than in the relation of means to an end, must be to exalt and glorify it. Those who impugn the whole system of evangelical belief as derogatory to the moral character of religion, and who therefore insist upon moral duties as the means of attaining eternal life, do really dethrone Christian righteousness from its Divine supremacy, and turn it into a prudential expedient for promoting one’s own advantage, by making it a series of stepping-stones or a flight of stairs by which men may climb from the borders of perdition to the threshold of heaven. It is they who dishonour—of course unintentionally—the nature and claims of Gospel righteousness, not teachers like Baxter and Howe, who, refusing to look at that righteousness merely or mainly as means to an end, as price paid for a treasure, or as service done for reward, represent it as the goal of all endeavour, the prize of the Christian race, the richest gift of Divine love, and the brightest diamond in the crown of salvation.

A word may be added indicative of the literary and intellectual niche which the names of these distinguished men deserve to occupy. Dr. Arnold said of the Church Divines of the seventeenth century, “I cannot find in any of them a really great man.”[548] Without adopting the opinion so expressed, I am constrained to say that we can find little of what may be called genius in some of the most renowned. No one could ascribe that high gift to Thorndike, with all his stores of learning and powers of reflection. No one would think of ascribing it to Bull or Pearson. Nor, if we include Puritans, can it be attributed in any high degree to Goodwin or Owen. Perhaps not one of the whole class of theological writers at the time, able as they were, could be justly esteemed the equal of that magnificent moral philosopher and theologian in the days of Queen Elizabeth, Richard Hooker, or the compeer even of Thomas Jackson, whose power, learning, and eloquence so brightly adorned the Church in the reign of James I. Jeremy Taylor, no doubt, had received Heaven’s gift of genius in the form of imagination, and a power of musical expression in prose such as no one else could rival, not even John Milton; but, in my opinion, the two theologians of that age who possessed most of original power were Richard Baxter and John Howe.

Moreover, there was in both of these men a breadth of human sympathy—always closely allied to the highest order of intellect—which redeemed them from the narrowness of some of their contemporaries. Baxter and Howe evinced none of the restricted Churchmanship which blinded the Anglicans to all goodness not seen in their own communion; and none of the exclusive Calvinism which made some Puritans virtually shut up God’s love to a few like themselves, and hand over to reprobation the remainder of the race. Baxter, although not an accomplished scholar, was a man of wide and varied reading, and had a decided taste for history, politics, and especially metaphysics, as well as for theology; and Howe, who seems to have known much more of Greek than his friend, was at home amongst the ancient masters of philosophy, and perhaps with none of his brethren, except Theophilus Gale, was Plato such an intimate acquaintance, and such a thorough favourite. It has been justly remarked that the man who is only a theological scholar is a very poor one.[549] The remark may detract from the reputation of some of the Puritans, but not from the reputation of the two Divines we have last described.

Before I close this imperfect survey of the theology of the Puritans, it is desirable to bring together, in some distinct form, the characteristics of their teaching in reference to certain points which have not been noticed in the foregoing detailed account of their opinions.

Here we notice first what they say upon the nature of sacraments.

Goodwin and Owen refer to the subject of baptism incidentally, the former speaking of it as the sign of salvation, and as the sealing of our calling, our justification, our renewal, and our union with Christ; the latter alluding to it chiefly for the purpose of denying that it has the regenerating or purifying power ascribed to it by Catholics. But he says a cleansing in profession and signification accompanies baptism, when it is rightly administered.[550]

Baxter enters at large upon the subject, and discusses, in reference to it, such questions as are particularly interesting to Catholics; and one question at least—“Is baptism by laymen or women lawful in cases of necessity?”—he answers after a manner resembling that of the highest Anglican. He denies that there can be such necessity, yet he does not absolutely pronounce lay baptism a nullity; although he adds, If the baptizer “were in no possession or pretence of the office, I would be baptized again if it were my case; because I should fear that what is done in Christ’s name by one that notoriously had no authority from Him to do it, is not owned by Christ as His deed, and so is a nullity.”[551] Again, he remarks, “All that the minister warrantably baptizeth are sacramentally regenerate, and are, in foro ecclesiæ, members of Christ, and children of God, and heirs of heaven.” “Therefore it is not unfit that the minister call the baptized regenerate and pardoned members of Christ, and children of God, and heirs of heaven, supposing that in foro ecclesiæ they were the due subjects of baptism.” What so subtle a dialectician exactly meant by some things he said upon this subject, I do not undertake to say; but certainly Baxter showed, like Thorndike, a strong disposition to connect the functions of faith with a baptismal covenant. Baxter’s theory was one which, upon a comparison of his theology in general with that of Thorndike, must have materially differed from it; and the qualifications introduced by the former in immediate connection with the sentences quoted—which qualifications I have deferred citing until now, in order that their force may be more clearly seen—must be considered, if we would avoid misapprehending the drift of his sentiments. “It is only those that are sincerely delivered up in covenant to God in Christ, that are spiritually and really regenerate, and are such as shall be owned for members of Christ and children of God in foro cœli.”[552] Those readers who are familiar with the controversy on baptismal regeneration will see at once that Baxter’s statements, with his qualifications, may be so explained as to point to a condition of Divine privilege, possibilities, and opportunities, rather than to anything else. He further made a distinction between some baptized children and others; a distinction which seems to shift the conveyance of spiritual benefit from the rite itself to the relation sustained by the child to a godly parent. “Not,” he says, “that all the baptized, but that all the baptized seed of true Christians are pardoned, justified, adopted, and have a title to the Spirit and salvation.”[553] And in his Now or Never (published in 1663), there occurs a very strong passage against baptismal regeneration as held by some Episcopalians.[554]

Howe touches upon the subject of baptism in his Living Temple, and speaks of it as a taking on of Christ’s badge and cognizance, as the fit and enjoined sign and token of becoming Christians, and as a federal rite by which remission of sin is openly confirmed and sealed.[555]

Dr. Jacomb, in his treatise on Holy Dedication, uses, as already noticed, very strong expressions relative to the nature and effects of the ordinance; and I may observe that generally the writings of the Puritans on the whole subject are pervaded by a mystic and sacramental tone such as would not evoke the sympathies of their religious descendants.

The Lord’s Supper, Dr. Goodwin exhibits, in opposition to the Catholic view, not as a commemorative sacrifice to God, but as a remembrance of His sacrifice to men; and he says that by it the intention on God’s part is to represent the whole work of Christ; and the intention on our part is to show it forth, and to signify our personal interest in the benefits of His death.[556] Neither in Owen nor in Howe, so far as I can find, is there anything indicative of their opinions on the nature of the Lord’s Supper; but Baxter writes copiously upon this theme. According to him, the consecration of the sacrament respects God the Father, and makes it the representative body and blood of Christ, whilst, in such consecration, the Church offers the elements to be accepted of God for this sacred use; the commemoration of the sacrament respects God the Son, and He is in it, “in effigy,” still crucified before the Church’s eyes, and by it the faithful show the Father that sacrifice in which they trust; and the communication of the sacrament respects God the Holy Ghost, as being that Spirit given in the flesh and blood for the quickening of the soul.[557] The same author, in his Dying Thoughts, remarks, with reference to the Real Presence, “When we dispute against them that hold transubstantiation and the ubiquity of Christ’s body, we do assuredly conclude that sense is judge, whether there be real bread and wine present or not; but it is no judge, whether Christ’s spiritual body be present or not, no more than whether an angel be present. And we conclude that Christ’s body is not infinite or immense, as is His Godhead; but, what are its dimensions, limits or extent, and where it is absent, far be it from us to determine, when we cannot tell how far the sun extendeth, its secondary substance, or emanant beams; nor well what locality is as to Christ’s soul, or any spirit, if to a spiritual body.”[558] It is strange indeed to hear a Puritan speaking thus; his language has almost a patristic and Anglican sound. Some mysterious presence of the body of Christ in the material elements on the altar was believed by the orthodox Fathers; and Origen regarded that body as being ethereal and ubiquitous, and capable of assuming different forms: even the judicious Hooker supposed that the human substance of Christ is universally present “after a sort, by being nowhere severed from that which everywhere is present.” It is easier to employ definite expressions on this subject, and others of a similar kind, than to form definite notions corresponding with the expressions; and it appears to me very hard to say exactly what either Origen or Hooker meant by the language which they employed on this subject. Certainly Baxter expresses no decided opinion as to the presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament; but he admits such a presence to be not impossible, and thus opens the door for such unsatisfactory speculations as those in which Origen and Hooker indulged. Baxter, from his scholastic habits of thought, and from his familiarity with Catholic as well as Protestant theologians, was led, on the subject of baptism and the Lord’s Supper—especially the latter—to adopt a much more mystical form of belief than his Puritan brethren were wont to entertain.[559]

In connection with the subject of sacraments, it is pertinent to inquire what were the opinions of these Divines in reference to the ministry and ordination. Baxter, as might be expected, discusses the question in his usual scholastic manner. His views on baptism, as just stated, indicate that he attached much importance to clerical order; and he alludes to the power conveyed from Christ to the individual minister, of which power he says neither the electors nor the ordainers are the donors; they are only the instruments of designing an apt recipient, and of delivering the possession of office. This position involves a denial of the High Church doctrine of orders, and this doctrine Baxter still farther denies, when he concludes that imposition of hands is not essential to ordination, but is simply a decent, apt, and significant sign. Ordination, however, he holds to be needful; for, without this key, the office of the ministry and the doors of the Church would be thrown open to heretics and self-conceited persons. The power of ordination he believes to be vested in the senior pastors of the Church, and the people’s call, or consent, he does not regard as necessary to the minister’s reception of office in general, but only to his pastoral relation. He admits that laymen may preach, as did Origen and Constantine, but he cautiously restricts their preaching to their families, or within “proper bounds.” What he had witnessed in the army had given the good man a great horror of the license claimed by lay orators on religious subjects; and, no doubt, recollections of some of his military antagonists came before his mind when he laid down the law, that lay teachers must not presume to go beyond their abilities, especially in matters dark and difficult. He also forbids them to thrust themselves into public meetings, and proudly and schismatically to set themselves up against their lawful pastors.[560] Baxter’s Presbyterianism appears throughout his treatment of these subjects—subjects respecting which Goodwin, Owen, and Howe are silent. But it is not to be inferred from this circumstance that they were indifferent to order in the ministry and the Church. What the Independents determined respecting these matters, in the Savoy Declaration, we have seen in a previous chapter.

Next to the Puritan treatment of the sacraments and the ministry comes the Puritan share in the anti-Popish controversy. Although none of the Divines now under consideration took so prominent a part in it as did Cosin, Bramhall, and Barrow,—although none of them, on this subject, published books which have become so famous as some written by their brethren,—yet of their intense opposition to Romanism there is not the shadow of a doubt. They might not have the same reasons for wielding anti-Papal weapons which their Anglican contemporaries had, who, by the charges of Romanizing tendencies brought against them, were compelled to stand up in self-defence.[561] Still, expressions of horror at the very thought of Rome are numerous enough in the works of the Puritans, and some of them couched their thoughts on the subject in the strongest phraseology. Nor were there wanting treatises expressly upon the errors of Romanism from Puritan hands. Owen, at the suggestion of Lord Clarendon, it is said, wrote his Animadversions on Fiat Lux; a work which so pleased His Lordship that he declared the writer had more merit than any English Protestant of that period, and offered him preferment if he would conform. Baxter went beyond Owen in the laborious defence of the Reformed against the Tridentine Church; for he published altogether nearly twenty books and pamphlets in this department of polemical literature, leaving “no one point in the extensive field untouched,” and supplying “a complete library on Popery.”[562]

In addition to what has been said on the subject in other portions of this History, a passing notice must be taken of the ecclesiastical controversies carried on by the Puritans against the High Church party. During the Civil Wars, and under the Protectorate, unsparing attacks were made upon Prelacy, modified schemes of Episcopacy were proposed, Presbyterianism was upheld in books and pamphlets almost innumerable, and between that system of Church government and Congregationalism the warfare continued fierce and incessant. The Presbyterian contended against the Prelatist for the original identity of Bishops and elders, and for the scriptural authority of their own scheme of rule and discipline. He contended against the Congregationalist for the right and the duty of reducing England to a state of ecclesiastical uniformity, based upon the decisions of the Westminster Assembly, and defended by the employment of magisterial power. The Congregationalist contended against the Presbyterian for the liberty of gathering Independent Churches, and of maintaining Independent discipline—and for the toleration, within certain limits, of all Christian sects. Of course, after the Restoration, although the main differences continued as before, and ecclesiastical disputes, essentially the same, were carried on—differences in the treatment of these questions necessarily arose, and changes in polemics on all sides became inevitable. When the garrison within the castle walls are mastered and turned out by the besiegers—when those who were besiegers become the garrison, and those who formed the garrison become besiegers, the tactics of each party will undergo alteration. Whilst Presbyterians or Independents, or both, were in the ascendant, Episcopalians had to assume an offensive attitude. They were, in fact, for the time being, Dissenters from the Established religion of the country, and had, as such, to make good their position as best they might. But when Prelacy had been reestablished, its friends no longer needed the kind of battering-rams which they had used very uncomfortably for about twenty years, they would simply buckle on their defensive armour, and fence with their weapons as in days of old. The other party had now to attack those who were in power, and to draw their lines of circumvallation around the fortress of intolerance, whilst they steadily defended themselves against the charge of schism, and earnestly contended for liberty and the rights of conscience. Baxter, in his Plea for Peace, argued against Conformity on the ground of its unjust impositions,—such as the expression of “assent and consent” to all things contained in the Prayer Book, canonical subscription, re-ordination in the case of Presbyterians, and the oath against seeking any change in Church or State.

The right of imposing things indifferent was a point which met with much consideration in books as well as in the Savoy discussions. Respecting this subject, the reader cannot do better than ponder an extract from Sanderson, in favour of imposing such things, and another from Baxter, against all impositions of the kind.

“The liberty of a Christian,” says the Anglican, “to all indifferent things, is in the mind and conscience, and is then infringed, when the conscience is bound and straightened, by imposing upon it an opinion of doctrinal necessity. But it is no wrong to the liberty of a Christian man’s conscience, to bind him to outward observance for order’s sake, and to impose upon him a necessity of obedience. Which one distinction of doctrinal and obediential necessity well weighed, and rightly applied, is of itself sufficient to clear all doubts on this point. For, to make all restraint of the outward man in matters indifferent, an impeachment of Christian liberty, what were it else, but even to bring flat Anabaptism and anarchy into the Church; and to overthrow all bond of subjection and obedience to lawful authority? I beseech you consider, wherein can the immediate power and authority of fathers, masters, and other rulers over their inferiors consist; or the due obedience of inferiors be shown towards them, if not in these indifferent and arbitrary things. For, things absolutely necessary, as commanded by God, we are bound to do, whether human authority require them or no; and things absolutely unlawful, as prohibited by God, we are bound not to do, whether human authority forbid them or no. There are none other things left then, wherein to express properly the obedience due to superior authority than these indifferent things.”[563]