Baxter #2 - Heeding Those In Your Care

In the dim distant past I was fortunate enough to study psychology at university. As a result I always have plenty of material on hand to spice up dull dinner party conversation - 'werewolves', dissociative fugue, why that anti-AIDS "Bowling Death" ad was ineffective, etc. I also learned how to decode common mental tics like Deja-vu - that eerie feeling of having been/seen/heard something before. Despite what the psychics may espouse, deja-vu derives from a misfire in your synapses when, on the presentation of a stimulus, your natural 'Recognition -> Emotional Response' process is reversed. Your consciousness then attempts to compensate by giving you the "We've Been Here Before" feeling. Perfectly natural, but in this case it really is your mind playing tricks on you!

I had such a feeling reading through chapter 2 of The Reformed Pastor this week. However, in this case, I could pinpoint exactly where the feeling came from...

Baxter continues his discursus on the oversight of the church by expanding on his key text of Acts 20:28. After instructing his readers that they must begin by taking heed of themselves he then describes how they must take heed of those whom God has given them. It is at this point that the feeling of deja-vu kicks in. It is obvious that Baxter owes a great deal to Bucer in his second chapter. His identification of the different types of 'sheep' to be dealt with follows Bucer almost exactly and his instruction about restoring those who are lost in sin also follow Bucer's pattern. This in itself is not surprising. Though Bucer's work had not appeared in English, the debt that 17th Century Puritanism owed to 16th Century Geneva made it natural that Baxter should turn to the Reformation texts for inspiration.

Baxter, following Bucer, takes pains to outline the seriousness of the work of guarding souls and calling those who have not believed in Christ to put their faith in Him. He views the congregation as the central charge of the pastor, and expresses disdain for those weak leaders who seek a comfortable living or ecclesiastical preferment rather than preaching the Gospel. None are to be neglected, but the lost are to be sought, the injured healed, the weak strengthened, etc. Those who are interested in some of the niceties would do well to read my previous posts on Bucer - the effect would be the same.

I then began asking myself, since Bucer and Baxter appear to be of a similar mind, which of their treatments I preferred. After careful consideration it is my view that not much was gained in the 100 years that separate the two tracts, and in fact a few points have suffered in the ageing.

No-one for a moment questions that Baxter strove to be biblical in all his opinions. The problem is that he does not go out of his way to demonstrating it. In many ways the main weakness that applied to Herbert also applies to Baxter - a lack of broad engagement with Scripture to justify their positions. Perhaps this was just a question of contemporary style - I haven't read enough of the 17th Century divines, either Puritan or Moderate, to make a judgment. It was, of course, possible to quibble with Bucer's exegesis (indeed, given the advances in biblical scholarship, you would be concerned if you couldn't), but at least you could feel comfortable that he was attempting to use a range of texts to justify his pastoral applications. Baxter relies on one text, and while there is nothing objectionable in his conclusions it would have been nice to see him justify them occasionally.

An area in which Baxter differs markedly from Bucer is over the issue of public penance. It will be remembered that Bucer maintained that restoration of proper application of public penance was essential for the health of the church in those cases where gross sin has seriously damaged community as evidence that the repentance of the sinner has been genuine. Indeed, Bucer devoted a large portion of his treatise to this subject. However, Baxter ignores the subject completely, willing to take declarations of contrition as evidence enough of repentance. Bucer felt that pastoral discipline should extend to both the internal and the external spheres, while Baxter seems rooted in the former. Bucer's opinions swayed me initially and I have not had cause to alter my judgment.

This is not to dismiss Baxter's approach completely. On the whole he expands upon the work that Bucer had done previously, and his prose is both affecting and compelling. It is hard not to be moved while reading Baxter to do the very best possible in our pastoral roles. At some moments, however, Baxter's enthusiasm appears to run away with him and he is not as systematic as someone like Calvin would have been. Several of his points regarding the manner of oversight overlap greatly and it is possible that this section could have been simplified. However, this was probably a tendency of the age and should not be judged too harshly.