Don’t be an infidel

Richard Baxter: The chief end of the commonwealth is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever

Richard Baxter:

Thes. 68: That is the best form of Government to this or that People, that all things considered, doth most powerfully tend to their spiritual and everlasting welfare, and their Holiness, Obedience and pleasing of God. [...] Nothing more sure than that our ultimate end must turn the scales of our estimation of all means. A horse may be stronger than a man, and a dog sounder, and a Tree live longer here. The Turkish Dominion may have more riches, and Power, and larger Command than the English Common-wealth: But it is not therefore the happier: That which most advanceth the people to salvation, and keeps out sin, and keeps up holiness, and pleaseth God, is the best Government. He that believeth not this, is at the heart an Infidel. A prison with holiness and the favour of God, is better than all the riches and Glory of the world without it. The common cause of the Damnation of all that perish is the preferring of Riches, Honor, Pleasure, Liberty and such fleshly accommodation before God and glory. No men on earth therefore can more promote the Devil's work, and the perdition of souls, than these that plead for corporal advantages in the framing of their Common-wealths against God's interest, and the well-fare of men's souls! They too grossly play over again the game that the Devil plaid with Christ that foiled him: (Mat. 4.) when he offered him all the Kingdoms and glory of the world, if he would worship him. None but those that have forsaken God shall be so far forsaken by him as to follow these impious Principles. We will not contrive our owne adversity, not refuse Prosperity when God affordeth it: But we must estimate all with respect to our ultimate end, and prefer the flames before a Crown when it is against this end. (A Holy Commonwealth, Thesis 68)

When it comes to determining appropriate modes of civil government, Richard Baxter says that the ultimate end of civil society, or the commonwealth, must determine which means we use.

For Baxter, the ultimate end of the commonwealth is “God and glory”. This is not altogether surprising: man is a political animal. The commonwealth is not a concession to human fallenness or some artificial edifice added externally to individual human beings; rather, the commonwealth is human nature in its mature, developed form. (Within a generation or two, even without the fall, we can suppose that the sons of Adam would have had to appoint decision-makers and authorities in order to coordinate large-scale projects, to distribute goods, to divvy up parcels of land, and so on.)

For Baxter, the issue of whether democracy, aristocracy or monarchy would be most appropriate for civil government is subordinate to this more fundamental issue of the natural ends of human society. Only once we answer that question can we fruitfully investigate what kind of governmental structures might bring about or support those ends. Baxter made no secret of his disdain for democracy, but he recognised that such a form of government was legitimate, insofar as it tended towards the commonwealth being oriented to the glory of God.

If you believe that the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever—and you should—then you should also believe that the chief end of the commonwealth, which is man-in-his-developed-form, is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever.

Baxter’s ends-based approach is very different to the means-based approach of pluralistic liberal democracies: the commonwealth’s end of glorifying God is not as important as whether we employ democratic means for decision-making. The standard view of many in our society is that government exists not to promote any particular vision of the proper end of human life, or to facilitate people living towards their highest goods, but simply to allow anyone and everyone to pursue whatever vision of ultimate ends they may prefer. On this view, it may be permissible for Christian values to inform or influence our society, but such an influence must be subordinated to the democratic mechanism. For us, in stark contrast to Baxter, our democratic means turn the scales of our estimation of all ends.

However, Baxter’s bugbear in the particular passage quoted above is not democratic decision-making, but rather, the gaining of wealth. This is also commonly heard in our discussions of government and its functions. How often have our rulers suggested or explicitly told us that the priority of civil government is to maintain the standard of living, or to drive jobs and growth? So presented, the government has no substantial task in seeking the glory of God, but merely “corporal advantages” for the citizenry.

Baxter tells us plainly what he thinks about this way of thinking: to subordinate the interests of God and the eternal good of men’s souls to concerns for filling one’s belly and bank account is, so Baxter says, simply to be an infidel, an unbeliever. It is to believe that the chief end of man is something other than to glorify God.

Dear reader, don’t be an infidel.