Editor's Introduction.
Editor's Introduction.
T ravis Fentiman 1, ReformedBooksOnline.com The great value of this work by the English puritan Richard Baxter is its thorough demolishing of separatistic tendencies and principles.
Separatism, that one must separate from (nearly) every Church or worshipimpurity, rarely goes under that name and often expresses itself in tendencies and shades of varying degrees. Many Christians who do not think of themselves as Separatists may yet be separatistic. Separatism's principles and conclusions are often promoted as the very standard of Christian piety and righteousness, yet the separatistic tendency is a vice, thoroughly contrary to the Scriptures and the love of Christ for his body, and is schismatic. 2 Once separatistic principles take root in one's way of thinking, they are very hard to root out. Baxter will help you do just that.
Owen's Manuscript The separatistic tendencies and conclusions of John Owen, a famed
English puritan, are little known or appreciated. Shortly after Owen died in 1683, Baxter received from someone a manuscript with "twelve arguments,
famed to be Dr. John Owen's." Baxter said, "Whether fame truly or falsely father them, I know not." 3 The arguments were first published a generation later in 1720 under the printer's general title, "An Answer unto Two
Questions by the late Judicious John Owen, D.D., with Twelve Arguments against any Conformity to Worship not of Divine Institution". 4 Baxter had written:
"I was willing, as long as I could, to believe that they were not his; they being as fallacious and frivolous as any… But… his own friends that have more of his on the same subject (chiding me for answering them) professed that they are his…" 5
All the evidence, it appears, is consistent with and points toward Owen as the manuscript's author. 6 Due to Owen's fame, backlash to any who might reply would be inevitable. 7 Baxter chose to, in part because he, in his own words:
"was going out of the world in pain and languor, did think that I was fittest to bear men's censures, and to take that reproach on myself which my brethren were less fit to bear, who might live for further service." 8
The Non-Conformist Controversy The Owen-Baxter exchange was part of a larger controversy amidst the English non-conformists after the strict civil imposition of the impure
Anglican Church Liturgy in 1662. The dispute was known by one side of the non-conformists as the "occasional conformity controversy". 9 However that title is itself biased, making the question to be, from the default perspective of remaining separate: Whether laypersons should occasionally conform and attend the Liturgy or not? Rather, from Baxter's side, the question may be more aptly put: Whether one must totally and always separate from God's worship in the established churches and the Liturgy?
To refine the issue further: the point at hand only necessarily respected the service for the Lord's Day, 10 which was less objectionable than other parts of the Service-Book, and that in the parish-churches, which had a more simple and Biblical service compared to the diocesan, city churches, which had many more man-made, showy additions in worship. Nor was the issue necessarily participation in any specific part of the Liturgy-service, but solely one's presence at it. 11 Those who answered the question(s) with the necessity of perpetual separation were in continuity with the Separatists, whose cause had been being continued in England since at least the late1500's.
Owen's Moderation 12 On the one hand it appears Owen was less separatistic than many today and did not advocate the necessity of separation upon (nearly) any impurity.
The eighteenth-century printer's specific title for Owen's piece read, "Twelve Arguments against any Conformity of Members of Separate
Churches, to the National Church". 13 In laying down his position, Owen writes, "It is not lawful for us to go to, and join in public worship by the Common-Prayer". That "us" may likely refer back to those persons mentioned in the first question that had preceded the twelve arguments as printed: "persons, who have engaged unto reformation and another way of divine worship, according to the Word of God". 14 Hence Owen was not intending to necessarily argue regarding persons in the established Church who continued to attend the Liturgy, but only regarding those who had
"engaged unto reformation," and, according to the printer, were already a part of separate, more outwardly pure congregations.
In a previous work Owen had listed out six accumulated circumstantial grounds for separation that were current in England at that time, 15 which
are not all present in America today. One chief ground was that the Liturgy was imposed by law as exclusive to any other form of worship. 16 Given the Liturgy's impurity, the law's exclusion of pure-Gospel worship and the appearance of scandal and backsliding for persons attending the Liturgy when they might have better public worship, Owen's position may seem to be sound divinity.
Owen's Separatistic Principles On the other hand, Owen's six circumstantial grounds for separation, and that the Liturgy was exclusively imposed, equally applied to persons within the established Church. Owen's (apparent) attempted application of his principles only to "persons, who have engaged unto reformation" 17 rests on the assumption that such an engagement unto reformation binds one to a higher standard than those who have not so engaged. While it is acknowledged such persons have a greater obligation unto God's Word by such an engagement, it is absolutely impossible for the creature ever to morally bind himself beyond God's Law (Mt. 15:3-8; Jm. 4:12). 18 That puts engagers to reformation and those who have not so engaged under the same standard, and God's Law is exactly that which Baxter will be arguing below for all alike. But see it in Owen himself: eleven of his twelve arguments below are not specific to persons of separate congregations, but, if they are sound, constrain all Christians.
Owen was well aware, with Baxter reminding the reader of the obvious, 19 that some persons who had engaged to reformation and were even members of separate congregations, might one year worship at a dissenting congregation safely, and the next year incur more hurt by it (whether due to employment issues, being imprisoned, persecution, etc.) than benefit received. Some may prefer the more pure public worship in its outward acts
some of the time, and yet be more edified by the more godly minister with better praying and preaching in the closer conformed church. Or, if the weather be bad, making a five mile trip outside the city infeasible (as was common), would not going to the closer established church be better than staying at home?
Even if Owen's principles could be limited to persons who have engaged to reformation, his conclusion of necessary separation from the established worship is still contrary to Scripture. Wouldn't this condemn many of the righteous saints in the Old Testament, and Jesus, who remained attendant upon the legally enforced established Church and worship, which was often much more corrupt than England's, while seeking her reformation? (1 Sam.
2:1-3, 11-20; 1 Kings 8:31-39; 22:42-43; 2 Kings 12:2-3; 14:1-4; 2 Chron. 7 with 1 Kings 11:1-12; 2 Chron. 15:15-18; 20:9; Neh. 13:7-14; Jer. 26 & 28;
Eze. 9:4, 6 with Eze. 8-9; Joel 1:13-14; 2:15-19; Mt. 21:13; 23:1-5, 13, 1625, 34-35; Lk. 1:5-6; 19:45-48; Jn. 2:13-17; Jn. 18:20; the high priests, who represented all the worshippers in the highest acts of their worship, Ex.
28:29; Lev. 16:16; Heb. 5:1, were supposed to serve for life, Lev. 16:32; Num. 20:25-28; 35:25, but they were not doing so, Lk. 3:2; Jn. 18:13; Acts
4:6, contrary to God's ordinance, due to civil impositions of heathen magistrates) 20 Numerous of Owen's arguments below conclude for the sinfulness of liturgies and forms of prayer as such (despite his prefacing otherwise). 21
More alarmingly, some of Owen's principles, if they are sound, necessitate separation from every church or worship-error. To set forth only a few highlights:
"Position. It is not lawful for us to go and join in public worship by the Common-prayer, because that worship itself, according to the rule of the
Gospel, is not lawful."
"he that joins in the worship of the Common-prayer does, by his practice, make profession that it is the true worship of God, accepted by him, and approved of him, and wholly agreeable to his mind…"
"Fourth Argument. That which gives testimony against the faithfulness of Christ in his house… is not to be complied withal…"
If Owen's principles and arguments are not sound, his separatist conclusion does not follow.
Owen's Continuation of the Separatist Trajectory Owen cannot be thought to be ignorant or even novel in how far he was going in all this, as if he was treading the way in breaking new theological ground. Those who argued the hardest and at greatest length with the most publications against the Separatists in the late-1500's through the greater share of the 1600's (more than any of the Anglican bishops, as Baxter mentions), were the puritans. 22 By far and away the dominant share of them argued for and practiced at least occasional communion with the parish-churches, 23 including the Westminster divines, 24 which was a major distinguishing mark between them and the Separatists. Owen's repeated qualification of speaking of the Anglican Church "in its present state" (in the 1680's) is of no help to him: for most of the history of the Anglican
Church since the beginning of her reformation, the Liturgy was exclusively civilly imposed; some eras were worse for non-conformists than the 1680's.
Baxter was not singular in his opinion: he was defending the main tide of puritanism.
Be aware that Baxter does not always interpret Owen in the best light possible: 25 While Owen did share the practical conclusion of the Separatists, he cannot be wholly identified with them. 26 Strangely enough,
Owen's ethics of political involvement and cooperation unto good ends greatly differed from his understanding of the same in the church-sphere.
Despite Owen's close association and working with the Separatists and other radicals politically for long periods of time, in truly scandalous contexts, 27 Owen justified it saying that he (emphasis added):
"never had a hand in, nor gave consent unto the raising of any war in these nations, nor unto any political alteration in them; no, not to any one that was among us, during our revolutions." 28
The author of Owen's 1720 "Life" continues in describing Owen's thought in the matter:
"he acknowledged that he lived and acted under them the things wherein he thought his duty consisted, and challenges all men to charge him with doing the least personal injury unto any, professing himself ready to give satisfaction to any one that can justly claim it." 29
One could wish Owen's political ethics of, in necessity, cooperating with what is less than good in something not inherently wrong, for higher goods, while seeking to avoid the greater hurt and scandal, without consenting to the bad, had carried over in greater measure to his ecclesiastical ethics.
Baxter will be arguing just this. 30
The Scottish Covenanters It may be of interest how the two English sides represented here compare to how the same issues simultaneously played out amongst the Scottish covenanters. Though a liturgy was not imposed in Scotland at the time, 31 the established churches were constrained by certain legally exclusive civil impositions. While acknowledging a complexity of varied factors and reasons at play, since the beginning of that era in 1662, the majority of the Scottish covenanters that resisted from outside the establishment, while
holding separate worship assemblies, yet thought it not wrong to attend the conformed churches, as Baxter. In 1679, a minority of them, who would come to be known as the Cameronians (followers of Richard Cameron), split from the majority, holding it wrong to at all attend the conformed churches, 32 as Owen.
Baxter's Treatment One need not agree with every claim, interpretation and statement of Baxter below, or even his paradigm for worship in general (which leaves some to be desired). 33 Yet, as with much of Baxter's writings, one will learn and profit greatly from him. Baxter has some truly profound sentiments. His brief history of English Separatism below, largely from his personal experience and knowledge, is insightfully fascinating. Don't be tempted to think that the historical details lessen the relevance of Baxter's work for today: If there was no excuse for the necessity of separation in England in their circumstances, there is even less excuse for Separatism today. Please enjoy Baxter's very valuable work as he theologically decimates the principles and tendencies of Separatism.
1. Fentiman, MDiv. is the webmaster of ReformedBooksOnline and lives in Vermont with his wife and four children. Baxter's work has been minimally edited (2024). The whole of this work is in the public domain. For any textual question, see the original: Richard Baxter, https://books.google.com/books?id=i487s3Ss55YC&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true (London:
Thomas Parkhurst, 1684).
2. See the https://reformedbooksonline.com/on-impurities-in-worship/#intro and https://reformedbooksonline.com/on-impurities-in-worship/#principles at https://reformedbooksonline.com/on-impurities-in-worship/ (RBO), and the numerous sections on the same page (with the Bible verses under each section). See also the many reformed writings against Separatism at https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/church/against-separatism/ (RBO). For where it is right to separate from Churches which tend to overturn the fundamentals of the faith, see https://reformedbooksonline.com/on-fundamental-secondary-tertiary-teachings-of-christianity/ and https://reformedbooksonline.com/is-roman-catholic-baptism-valid/#separation at 'On the Roman
Church being a Church, She being Apostate, her Baptism being Valid, that the Reformers' Ministerial
Calling was Valid, Necessity of Separation from Her & Whether Romanists may be Saved' (RBO).
3. Preface below 4. It should not be concluded this was Owen's title. As the thesis in the printer's title goes farther than
Owen himself apparently did, it shows how easily Owen's argumentation may encourage an even stronger separatism than Owen may have intended. John Owen, Seventeen Sermons Preach'd by the Reverend Dr. John Owen… (London: William & Joseph Marshall, 1720), vol. 2, https://archive.org/details/seventeensermons02owen/page/376/mode/2up?view=theater .
5. From the https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26880.0001.001/1:14?rgn=div1;view=fulltext to the work below, though the Postscript is not included below. For it, see https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26880.0001.001/1:14?rgn=div1;view=toc (London: Thomas
Parkhurst, 1684), not paginated.
6. Numerous footnotes have been added below where published sentiments of Owen on key points align with those in the manuscript. More could be added. Owen had prolonged history throughout his life being closely associated with Independents, Separatists and their radical political movements, including in preaching a sermon to the "Rump Parliament" the day after king Charles I's execution, being Oliver Cromwell's chaplain and serving on a parliament under Cromwell. William Orme, a biographer of Baxter and Owen, does not dispute Owen as the author. The manuscript was reprinted as a https://books.google.com/books?id=UQFgAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP31#v=onepage&q&f=false in 1839 as Owen's by a London publisher. The work was included in Owen's Works (1853), edited by
William H. Goold, in volume 16, https://archive.org/details/worksofjohnowe185016owen/page/238/mode/2up?view=theater , and was subsequently reprinted in modern times by the Banner of Truth. I am not aware of any case, or even a claim, that Owen was not the author.
7. For the numerous subsequent replies to Baxter, defending Owen, see William Orme, 'The Life &
Times of Richard Baxter' in The Practical Works of the Reverend Richard Baxter with a Life of the Author, 23 vols., ed. William Orme (London: Duncan, 1830), vol. 1, https://archive.org/details/practicalworksof01baxtuoft/page/610/mode/2up .
8. Baxter's stated reasons for replying to Owen are quoted by Orme: "Seeing so many in prison for this error, to the dishonor of God, and so many more likely to be ruined by it, and the separating party, by the temptation of suffering, had so far prevailed with the most strict and zealous Christians, that a great number were of their mind; and the nonconformable ministers, whose judgment was against this separation, durst not publish their dislike of it, partly because of sharp and bitter censures of the Separatists, and partly for fear of losing all opportunity of teaching them; and some that had no hope of any other friends or maintenance, or auditors, thought they might be silent. On all these accounts, I that had no gathered church, nor lived on the contribution of any such, and was going out of the world in pain and languor, did think that I was fittest to bear men's censures, and to take that reproach on myself, which my brethren were less fit to bear, who might live for further service. So at the importunity of the bookseller, I consented to publish the reasons of my communicating in the parish churches, and against separation. Which, when it was coming out, a manuscript of Dr. Owen's, who was lately dead, containing twelve arguments against such joining with the liturgy and public churches, was sent me, as that which had satisfied multitudes: I thought, that if this were unanswered, my labor would be much lost, because that party would still say, Dr. Owen's twelve arguments confuted all: whereupon, I hastily answered them, but found after, that it had been more prudent to have omitted his name. For, on that account, a swarm of revilers in the city poured out their keenest censures, and three or four wrote against me, whom I answered. I will not name the men that are known, and two of them are yet unknown; but they went on several principles, some charged all communion with the liturgy, with idolatry, anti-Christianity, perjury and backsliding. One concealed his judgment, and quarreled at my words. Another turned my treatise of Episcopacy against me, and said it fully proved the duty of separation. I was glad that I was hereby called to explain that treatise, lest it should do hurt to mistakers when I am dead; and that as in it I had said much against one extreme, I might leave my testimony against the other. I called all these writings together, 'A Defence of Catholic Communion.' And that I might be impartial, I adjoined two pieces against Dr. Sherlock, who ran quite into the contrary extremes…" Orme, "Life & Times", https://archive.org/details/practicalworksof01baxtuoft/page/606/mode/2up?view=theater .
9. So William H. Goold in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (1853; Banner of Truth,
2006), vol. 16, https://archive.org/details/worksofjohnowe185016owen/page/240/mode/2up? view=theater . See the numerous resources on the topic, from Baxter's side of things, at https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/church/against-separatism/#conformity at 'On Schism &
Separatism' (RBO).
10. See https://archive.org/details/bookofcommonpray00shie/page/36/mode/2up?view=theater (1661) in The Book of Common Prayer… ed. Charles Shields (Philadelphia: James Claxton, 1867), pp. 36-
11. Notice that Baxter does not speak of any outward participation (such as in responsive readings):
"I know nothing in the common Lord's-Day worship spoken in the name of the Church which a godly Christian may not join in with the exercise of the spirit of prayer with faith and comfort…"
Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen's Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London:
Parkhurst, 1684), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26882.0001.001/1:5?rgn=div1;view=fulltext , p. 12. Owen likewise makes the issue to be about one's presence (and nothing more) in numerous places.
12. Owen: "we wholly deny that the mistakes or disorders of Christians in complying with, or joining themselves unto such churches as have no warrantable institution ought to be any cause of the diminishing of our love towards them, or of withdrawing it from them." A Discourse concerning
Evangelical Love, Church-Peace and Unity (London, 1672), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53681.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext , pp. 66-67
13. Owen, Seventeen Sermons, 2.https://archive.org/details/seventeensermons02owen/page/390/mode/2up?view=theater .
14. It is not clear this is the case though, as it would make the propositions being defended in the first question and in the twelve arguments identical, and hence redundant. If "us" in the twelve arguments refers to people or Christians in general, it explains the need for the twelve arguments, in advancing the issue, but makes Owen much more separatistic.
15. Owen, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53674.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext (London:
Ponder, 1680), pp. 35-37.
16. See "As armed with laws", p. 25 below. Owen: "Wherefore the question about lay-communion is concerning that which is absolute and total, according unto all that is enjoined by the laws of the land, or by the canons, constitutions and orders of the Church." https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53674.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext , p. 13.
17. Owen had said in Question 1, which prefaces the twelve arguments in the printed editions: "And as unto the persons intended in the inquiry, we judge this practice unlawful unto them, as contrary unto sundry rules of the Scripture, and wherein it is condemned." Works,
16.https://archive.org/details/worksofjohnowe185016owen/page/240/mode/2up?view=theater .
18. See https://reformedbooksonline.com/on-oaths-vows/#never and https://reformedbooksonline.com/on-oaths-vows/#qualified at 'On Oaths & Vows' (RBO).
19. Argument 8, pp. 77-78 below 20. Josephus, Antiquities, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-18.html , ch. 2, sect. 1-2; ch. 4, sect. 3; ch. 5, sect. 3; https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html , ch. 1, sect. 3; ch. 5, sect.
2; ch. 8, sect. 5, 8, 11; ch. 9, sect. 1-4, 7; ch. 10; Jewish War, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-4.html , ch. 3, sect. 6; ch. 4, sect. 4.
21. Owen: "The present question is not about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of forms of prayer in general; nor about the lawfulness of that form, or those forms, which are prescribed in the CommonPrayer-Book, as unto their matter and manner of composure, absolutely considered; nor yet about the expediency of the whole system of worship limited thereunto…" Question 1 in Seventeen Sermons,
2.https://archive.org/details/seventeensermons02owen/page/380/mode/2up?view=theater . Baxter:
"Had not the MS. been against all forms of liturgy, but only against the real or supposed faults of the English one; and had it been only against owning the faults, and not against communion in necessary duty, I had not troubled you, by my Defense." "To the unknown Author of a Letter lately sent me" in https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12024/A26880/A26880.html? sequence=5&isAllowed=y , not paginated.
22. See their writings against the Separatists at https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/church/against-separatism/ (RBO).
23. See Baxter, The Nonconformists' Plea for Peace (London, 1679), 7. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26965.0001.001/1:9?rgn=div1;view=fulltext , sect. 3, pp. 12122; James Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue (London: Taylor, 1704), https://books.google.com/books? id=wBQVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false ; John
Williams, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo2/A33791.0001.001/1:13?rgn=div1;view=fulltext in A Collection of Cases & other Discourses lately written to recover Dissenters to the communion of the Church of England by some Divines of the City of London (London, 1685), vol. 1.
24. Baxter, Nonconformists' Plea, 7. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26965.0001.001/1:9? rgn=div1;view=fulltext , sect. 3, p. 127; Owen, Moderation Still a Virtue, https://books.google.com/books?id=wBQVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=true .
25. Owen elaborated on numerous of his points in previous publications with greater qualifications and detail. Baxter does not show knowledge or appreciation of this.
26. The Separatists typically denied the Anglican Church to be a Church at all, or at least not a "true
Church". Owen affirms the Anglican Church to be in a "Church-state" in An Enquiry into the Original, Nature, Institution, Power, Order & Communion of Evangelical Churches… (1681), https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53704.0001.001/1:4?rgn=div1;view=fulltext , pp. 5-6. He allows that at least some of the parochial churches were "true churches," having "the being and nature of
churches," in Ibid., https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A53704.0001.001/1:16?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
, pp. 249-50 & 283-84.
27. See above.
28. "Life" in Seventeen Sermons, 1.https://archive.org/details/seventeensermons01owen/page/n39/mode/2up? q=revolution&view=theater .
29. Ibid., 1.https://archive.org/details/seventeensermons01owen/page/n39/mode/2up? q=revolution&view=theater .
30. To see this principle defended and opened up, see https://reformedbooksonline.com/oncooperation-with-evil/ at 'On the Ethics of Material Cooperation with, & Associations with Evil'
(RBO).
31. Gordon Donaldson, ch. 4, "Covenant to Revolution" in eds. Duncan Forrester & Douglas Murray,
Studies in the History of Worship in Scotland (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), pp. 63-64.
32. The arguments of the majority of the resisting Scottish covenanters outside the establishment are better. For a secondary account of the whole, with the reasons of both sides, see https://archive.org/stream/scottish00mcri#page/328/mode/2up
& https://archive.org/stream/scottish00mcri#page/334/mode/2up of Thomas M'Crie, Story of the Scottish Church (1875). For primary sources with more details and reasons, see Robert
Wodrow, History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, vol.
3, https://archive.org/details/historyofsuffe03wodr/page/90/mode/2up (rt col) & https://archive.org/details/historyofsuffe03wodr/page/92/mode/2up?view=theater (rt col).
33. Baxter's paradigm is more Anglican than that of numerous of the English puritans, including
Owen. However Owen is not right in everything, nor is what he says sufficient to account for all of the issues regarding worship.