A26948:88
Mr. Richard Baxter's last legacy in select admonitions and directions to all sober dissenters
Mr. Richard Baxter's last legacy in select admonitions and directions to all sober dissenters.
A26948:88
Mr. Richard Baxter's last legacy in select admonitions and directions to all sober dissenters.
London : Printed and are to be sold by E. Whitlock, 1697
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Q. 152. Is it lawful to subscribe or profess full assent and consent to any religious Books, 1beside the Bible, seeing all are fallible. Answ. 3. It is lawful to Profess or Subscribe our Assent and Consent to any Humane Writing, which we judge to be true and good, according to the Measure of its Truth and Goodness. As if Church-Confessions, that are sound, be offered us for our Consent, we may say, or subscribe, I hold all the Doctrine in this Book to be true and good. And by so doing I do not assert the infallibility ⟨p. 20⟩of the Author, but only the verity of the Writing. I do not say that he cannot err, but that he erreth not in this, as far as I am able to discern.
Q. 35. Is it certain by the word of God, 1that all Infants baptized, and dying before actual sin, are undoubtedly saved? Answ. I think that all the Children of true Christians do by Baptism receive a public investiture,2 by God's appointment, into a state of Remission, Adoption, and right to Salvation, at present; though I dare not say, I am undoubtedly certain of it.— But I say, as the Synod of Dort, Art. 1. That believing Parents have no cause to doubt of the Salvation of their Children, that die in Infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble themselves with fears about it. For if such Infants were admitted to outward Privileges only, then (which is my second Reason) we have no Promise,3 or Certainty, or Ground of Faith for the Pardon and Salvation of any individual Infants in the World: and if there be no Promise, there is no Faith of it, nor no Baptism to Seal it, and so we make Anti-paedobaptism unavoidable.
Q. 35. Is it certain by the word of God, 1that all Infants baptized, and dying before actual sin, are undoutedly saved? Answ. I think that all the Children of true Christians do by Baptism receive a publick investiture,2 by God's appointment, into a state of Remission, Adoption, and right to Salvation, at present; though I dare not say, I am undoubtedly certain of it.— But I say, as the Synod of Dort, Art. 1. That believing Parents have no cause to doubt of the Salvation of their Children, that die in Infancy, before they commit actual sin; that is, not to trouble themselves with fears about it. For if such Infants were admitted to outward Priviledges only, then (which is my second Reason) we have no Promise,3 or Certainty, or Ground of Faith for the Pardon and Salvation of any individual Infants in the World: and if there be no Promise, there is no Faith of it, nor no Baptism to Seal it, and so we make Anti-paedobaptism unavoidable.
Whereas some mis-interpret the words of the old Rubric of Confirmation in the English Liturgy,1 as if it spake of all that are baptized, whether they have right or not, the words themselves may serve to rectify that mistake: [And that no Man shall think any detriment shall come to Children by deferring of their Confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's Word, that Children being baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.] where it is plain, they mean, they have all things necessary ex parte Ecclesiae, or all God's applying Ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing they have all things necessary to just Baptism on their own part: which is but what the Ancients were wont to say of the baptized Adult: but they never meant, that the Infidel and Impenitent were in a state of Life, because he was baptized, but that all that truly consent to the Covenant▪ and signify this by being baptized are saved. So the Church of England saith, that they receive no detriment by delaying Confirmation; but it never said, that they received no detriment by their Parents or Responses Infidelity or Hypocrisy, or by their want of true Right, coram Deo, to be baptized.
Whereas some mis-interpret the words of the old Rubrick of Confirmation in the English Liturgy,1 as if it spake of all that are baptized, whether they have right or not, the words themselves may serve to rectifie that mistake: [And that no Man shall think any detriment shall come to Children by deferring of their Confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's Word, that Children being baptized have all things necessary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.] where it is plain, they mean, they have all things necessary ex parte Ecclesiae, or all God's applying Ordinances necessary, though they should die unconfirmed, supposing they have all things necessary to just Baptism on their own part: which is but what the Ancients were wont to say of the baptized Adult: but they never meant, that the Infidel and Impenitent were in a state of Life, because he was baptized, but that all that truly consent to the Covenant and signifie this by being baptized are saved. So the Church of England saith, that they receive no detriment by delaying Confirmation; but it never said, that they received no detriment by their Parents or Responses Infidelity or Hypocrisie, or by their want of true Right, coram Deo, to be baptized.
Q. 39. What is the true meaning of Sponsors or Godfathers,1 and is it lawful to make use of them? Answ. My Opinion is, that they did both witness the probability of the Parents fidelity;2 and also promised, that if they should either apostatize, or die, they would see that the Children were piously educated. If you take them, but as the ancient Churches did, for such as do attest the Parents fidelity, (in their persuasion) and do promise, first, to mind you of your Duty, and next to take care of their pious Education, if you die; I know no reason you have to scruple this much; yea more, it is in your power to agree with the Godfathers, that they shall represent your own Persons, and speak and promise what they do, as your Deputies, only in your Names: and what have you against this?
Q. 39. What is the true meaning of Sponsors or Godfathers,1 and is it lawful to make use of them? Answ. My Opinion is, that they did both witness the probability of the Parents fidelity;2 and also promised, that if they should either apostaize, or die, they would see that the Children were piously educated. If you take them, but as the ancient Churches did, for such as do attest the Parents fidelity, (in their perswasion) and do promise, first, to mind you of your Duty, and next to take care of their pious Education, if you die; I know no reason you have to scruple this much; yea more, it is in your power to agree with the Godfathers, that they shall represent your own Persons, and speak and promise what they do, as your Deputies, only in your Names: and what have you against this?
Object. When the Church-men mean another thing, this is but to juggle with the World? Answ. How can you prove, that the Authority that made, or imposed the Liturgy, meant any other thing? 2. If the Imposers had meant ill, in a thing that may be done well, you may discharge your Conscience, by doing it well, and making a sufficient Profession of your better Sense.
As for the Antiquity of God-fathers, the current consent of Historians assures us that Hyginus Bishop of Rome, did first ordain God-fathers at the Baptism of Infants. He lived but forty years after St John. Preface to Infant Baptism.
Christ. Direct. p. 116. Part 3. Q. 41. Whether they are really baptized, who are baptized according to the English Liturgy and Canons, where the Parents seem excluded, and those to consent for the Infant, who have no power to do it?
Answ. p. 117. That the Parents Consent is supposed, though he be absent. 2. The Parent is not required to be absent. 3. The Reason of that Canon seems to be their jealousy lest any would exclude God-fathers. 4. While the Church hath not declared what Person the Sponsors bear, nor any farther what they are to do, than to speak the Covenanting words, and promise to see the pious Education of the Child, the Parents may agree that the God-fathers shall do all this as their Deputies primarily and in their steads, and secondly as Friends that promise their Assistance. 5. While Parents really consent, it is not their Silence that nullifieth the Covenant. 6. All Parents ⟨p. 22⟩are supposed and required to be themselves the Choosers of the Sponsors and Sureties, and also to give notice to the Ministers before hand, by which it appears their Consent is presupposed: And though my own Judgment be that they should be the principal Covenanters for the Child expressly, yet the want of that expressness will not make the Persons to be unbaptized.
Answ. p. 117. That the Parents Consent is supposed, though he be absent. 2. The Parent is not required to be absent. 3. The Reason of that Canon seems to be their jealousie lest any would exclude God-fathers. 4. While the Church hath not declared what Person the Sponsors bear, nor any farther what they are to do, than to speak the Covenanting words, and promise to see the pious Education of the Child, the Parents may agree that the God-fathers shall do all this as their Deputies primarily and in their steads, and secondly as Friends that promise their Assistance. 5. While Parents really consent, it is not their Silence that nullifieth the Covenant. 6. All Parents ⟨p. 22⟩are supposed and required to be themselves the Choosers of the Sponsors and Sureties, and also to give notice to the Ministers before hand, by which it appears their Consent is presupposed: And though my own Judgment be that they should be the principal Covenanters for the Child expresly, yet the want of that expresness will not make the Persons to be unbaptized.
Q. 42. How is the Holy Ghost given to Infants in Baptism? whether all the Children of true Christians have inward sanctifying Grace? &c. Answ. My judgment agreeth more in this with Davenant's, than any others; saving that he doth not appropriate the Benefits of Baptism to the Children of true Believers, so much as I do. And though, by a Letter impleading Davenant's Cause, I was the occasion of printing good Mr. Gataker's Answer to him; yet I am still most inclined to his judgment, Not, 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. And we must choose great Inconveniences, if this Opinion be forsaken, viz. That all Infants must be taken to be out of Covenant with God, and to have no promise of Salvation; whereas, surely the Law of Grace, as well as the Covenant of Works, included all the Seed in their Capacity.
Q. 83. May the People bare a Vocal part in Worship, 1and do any more than say Amen? Answ. The People bare an equal part in singing the Psalms, which are Prayer, and Praise, and Instruction: if they may do so in the Psalms in Metre, there can be no reason given, but they may lawfully do so in Psalms in Prose; for saying them, and singing them, are but modes of Utterance, and the ancient Singing was liker our Saying, than our Tunes. The Primitive Christians were so full of zeal and love to Christ, that they would have taken it for an Injury, and a quenching of the Spirit, to have been wholly restrained from bearing their part in the Praises of the Church. The use of the Tongue keepeth awake the Mind, and stirreth up God's Graces in his Servants. It was the decay of Zeal in the People, that first shut out the Responses: while they ⟨p. 23⟩kept up the Ancient Zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship. And this was seconded by the Pride and Usurpation of the Priests thereupon; who thought the People of God too profane to speak in the Assemblies, and meddle so much with Holy things. Yet the very remembrance of former zeal caused most Churches to retain many of the words of their predecessors, even when they lost the Life and Spirit which should animate them; and so the same words came into the Liturgies, and were used by too many, customarily, and in formality, which their Ancestors had used in the fervour of their Souls. And if it were not, that a dead-hearted, formal People, by speaking the Responses carelessly and hypocritically, do bring them into disgrace with many, that see the necessity of Seriousness, I think, few good People would be against them now.—It is here the duty of every Christian, to labour to restore the life and spirit to the Words, that they may again be used in a serious and holy manner, as heretofore, Exod. 19. 8. In as solemn an Assembly as any of ours, when God gave Moses a form of words to preach to the People, all the People answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do. So Exod. 24. 3. and Deuter. 5. 27. which God approved of, v. 28, 29. See
And he that will limit this to single Persons, or say that it must not be, vocally, in the Church, or, it must be in metre only, and never in prose, must prove it lest he be proved one, that addeth to God's Word.
Q. 84. Is it not a Sin for our Clerks, to make themselves the mouth of the People? 1Answ. The Clerks are not appointed to be the Mouth of the People, but each Clerk is one of the People, commanded to do that which all should do, lest it should be wholly left undone. If all the Congregation will speak all that the Clerk doth, it will answer the primary desire of the Church Governors who bid the People do it
Q. 86. Is it lawful to bow at the name of Jesus? Answ. That we may lawfully express our reverence,1 when the names ⟨p. 24⟩(God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, &c.) are uttered, I have met with few Christians who deny; nor know I any reason to deny it. If I live and join in a Church where it is commanded, and peremptorily urged, to bow at the Name of Jesus, and where my not doing it, would be divisive, Scandalous, or offensive; I will bow at the Name of God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, Lord, &c. My judgment of standing at the Gospel, and kneeling at the Decalogue, (when it is commanded) is the same.2
Q. 86. Is it lawful to bow at the name of Jesus? Answ. That we may lawfully express our reverence,1 when the names ⟨p. 24⟩(God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, &c.) are uttered, I have met with few Christians who deny; nor know I any reason to deny it. If I live and joyn in a Church where it is commanded, and peremptorily urged, to bow at the Name of Jesus, and where my not doing it, would be divisive, Scandalous, or offensive; I will bow at the Name of God, Jehovah, Jesus, Christ, Lord, &c. My judgment of standing at the Gospel, and kneeling at the Decalogue, (when it is commanded) is the same.2
Q. 83. May the People bare a Vocal part in Worship, 1and do any more than say Amen? Answ. The People bare an equal part in singing the Psalms, which are Prayer, and Praise, and Instruction: if they may do so in the Psalms in Metre, there can be no reason given, but they may lawfully do so in Psalms in Prose; for saying them, and singing them, are but modes of Utterance, and the ancient Singing was liker our Saying, than our Tunes. The Primitive Christians were so full of zeal and love to Christ, that they would have taken it for an Injury, and a quenching of the Spirit, to have been wholly restrained from bearing their part in the Praises of the Church. The use of the Tongue keepeth awake the Mind, and stirreth up God's Graces in his Servants. It was the decay of Zeal in the People, that first shut out the Responses: while they ⟨p. 23⟩kept up the Ancient Zeal, they were inclined to take their part vocally in the Worship. And this was seconded by the Pride and Usurpation of the Priests thereupon; who thought the People of God too prophane to speak in the Assemblies, and meddle so much with Holy things. Yet the very remembrance of former zeal caused most Churches to retain many of the words of their predecessors, even when they lost the Life and Spirit which should animate them; and so the same words came into the Liturgies, and were used by too many, customarily, and in formality, which their Ancestors had used in the servour of their Souls. And if it were not, that a dead-hearted, formal People, by speaking the Responses carelesly and hypocritically, do bring them into disgrace with many, that see the necessity of Seriousness, I think, few good People would be against them now.—It is here the duty of every Christian, to labour to restore the life and spirit to the Words, that they may again be used in a serious and holy manner, as heretofore, Exod. 19. 8. In as solemn an Assembly as any of ours, when God gave Moses a form of words to preach to the People, all the People answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do. So Exod. 24. 3. and Deuter. 5. 27. which God approved of, v. 28, 29. See Levit. 9. 24. 2 Kings 23. 2, 3. 1 Chron. 1. 35, 36. It is a command,2 Psal. 67. 3, 5. Let all the People praise thee, O God, &c.