Austin Walker is pastor, along with his son Jeremy, of Maidenbower Baptist Church, Crawley, West Sussex, UK and author of The Excellent Benjamin Keach, Joshua Press.
In 1690 Benjamin Keach was fifty years old and had been the pastor of a Particular Baptist congregation that met on the south bank of the River Thames, in Horselydown, Southwark, for some twenty years. He had first come to London from his native Buckinghamshire with his wife and family in 1668. Since the return of the Stuart monarchy in the person of Charles II in 1660, Nonconformists had been subjected to varying degrees of persecution. Keach was no stranger to persecution for the sake of Christ. As a young preacher and writer he had appeared before the Lord Chief Justice at Aylesbury Assizes in 1664 and was subsequently punished in the pillory. He continued to suffer for his Christian principles once he came to London until the removal of James II and the arrival of William of Orange from the Low Countries in 1689.[1]
Nevertheless he faithfully carried out his ministry during those difficult twenty years and continued to preach until shortly before his death in 1704. Having been converted to Christ at the age of fifteen through the ministry of Matthew Mead, Keach became convinced of believer’s baptism and joined the General Baptists, who met in and around Winslow in north Buckinghamshire. Having come to London, he also came to a new understanding of the covenant of grace, and adopted Calvinistic principles. Over time he became the single most important exponent of Particular Baptist convictions, especially during the last fifteen years of his life, from 1689 to 1704. By then the two other best-known Particular Baptist pastors in London were considerably older than Keach and past their prime. In 1689 Hansard Knollys was in his nineties (he died in 1691) and William Kiffin in his mid-seventies (he died in 1701). During those fifteen years Keach wrote prolifically. He produced nearly thirty books, thereby exceeding other Particular Baptists both in the scope and the extent of his works.
Among those writings were four important works that focused on the issue of justification by faith: The Marrow of True Justification (1692), The Everlasting Covenant, a sweet Cordial for a drooping soul (1693), The Display of Glorious Grace (1698), and A Medium betwixt two Extremes (1698). However, Keach also made frequent references to the same issue in other published sermons, such as A Golden Mine Opened, and in an extended series of sermons on the parables which he began preaching as Sunday early morning lectures in 1689 (finally published in 1701). Together these formed his contribution to what became known as the Neonomian or Antinomian (depending which side you took) controversy. Keach was often labelled “Antinomian” by his opponents; for his part, Keach preferred to refer to the teaching he contended against as “Baxterianism,” after its principal exponent, Richard Baxter (1615–1691).[2] This article uses Keach’s favoured term. Keach is sometimes mentioned by other commentators on the controversy as the key Particular Baptist contributor but in the past what he said has rarely been considered and assessed.
His Pastoral Concerns
With the arrival of William of Orange in 1689 the lot of Nonconformists changed. The immediate threat of the reintroduction of Roman Catholicism, represented by the person of James II, had passed. With the passing of the Toleration Act, Nonconformists enjoyed a measure of freedom that had been denied them since the days of Oliver Cromwell thirty years before. The more perilous days of persecution now lay behind men like Keach. However, he was not lulled into a false sense of security, imagining that the church of Christ was no longer in danger. As a pastor he was well aware that Satan had more that one way of attacking the church. He warned his readers that dangers still threatened them, for
in these Perilous Days Men are degenerated from the Apostolick Doctrine in this most important case, and oppose all our Authors: Protestant Writers, and deny Christ to be a Common Person, Head, Representative, and Surety, &c. but that he, as Mediator, hath by his Death merited a new and mild Law of Grace, i.e. of Faith and Sincere Obedience, and hath made a Compensation to the Justice of God, and the Law of Works, and so removed the Law of perfect Obedience, or abolished it for ever; so that now God deals with us not according to the strict Law of perfect Obedience, but according to this New Law, i.e. on easier Conditions, viz. such that believe and sincerely believe, shall be Justified even so far as they do Obey, and are sanctified; not that Christ’s Obedience to the Law, or that his Active and Passive Obedience imputed to us, and trusting in him according to the Free Promise of God, is the immediate and sole cause of Pardon, by virtue of Christ’s Satisfaction; but that tho Christ hath made God a means for Legal Righteousness, having satisfied the Law, and took it away; yet our Obedience to this New Law according to these Men, is our Evangelical Righteousness, whereby we fulfil the Gospel, and that our Obedience is the Condition of our Justification before God: Thus Mr. Baxter, Mr. Williams, Mr. Clark of Wickham, and many others.[3]Keach was one of many pastors in London in the 1690s who were concerned to establish their people in the biblical truth of justification by faith alone. He was fully persuaded that
the Doctrine of Justification is one of the greatest and most weighty subjects I can insist on: it being by all Christians acknowledged to be a Fundamental of Religion and Salvation…If a Person err herein, or be corrupt and of an unsound Faith in the case of Justification, he is a dangerous condition, though he may seem to be otherwise a Good Christian and of a Holy Life: for ’tis evident that there are damnable Principles as well as damnable Practices, according to the Apostle Peter, 2 Pet. 2.1,2.[4]For men like Keach, holding to such principles meant that they felt duty bound to expose the errors of those who taught something other than apostolic doctrine. As a caring pastor he was aware that many of his congregation were still babes in Christ and needed protection and further instruction. Furthermore, he knew that many Christians lacked understanding and were subject to doubts and fears that unsettled them in their assurance of salvation e.g. there were weak saints who judged their justification according to the degree and measure of their sanctification. His observant eye had seen that such Christians, aware of their deceitful hearts and the remaining evils and infirmities in their lives, appeared unable to believe they are justified in God’s sight.[5] Later on in the same sermon he warns, “take heed who you hear.”[6] One of his primary concerns was to protect his people in order that they might not be deceived nor carried away by false doctrine. This he did by opening up relevant sections and verses of the Scriptures in his preaching, and explaining their meaning before bringing pointed application. The method he adopted included not only declaring the truth but also demonstrating in what ways others were teaching something other than the biblical message. He not only dealt with Baxterianism, but also Roman Catholicism, Arminianism, and Socinianism. These were some of the “damnable principles” that he felt it was his duty to expose if he was to remain faithful to God and protect his people from error. The following passage is typical of the way in which he addressed his people, and reflects his passionate desire to see his flock properly established in biblical truth:
But, pray brethren, see, I beseech you, to take care rightly to distinguish between the garment of justification, and that of sanctification; many confound these two together, and strive to mix our inherent righteousness in our justification, with the righteousness of Christ: this was the error that Mr Baxter led the people into (though I hope he was a good man, God might open his eyes before he died.) It is, sirs, a dangerous thing to adhere to such a notion; this is to make our justification to be partly by works, and partly by grace. I tell you once again, all works of righteousness, either done by us, or wrought in us, are utterly excluded in our free justification. O! how do I long to see you all well established in this great fundamental truth of the gospel![7]In addition, as a man thoroughly persuaded that only the practice of believer’s baptism was biblical, he took serious issue with those paedobaptists for whom the baptism of an infant of believing parents (the baptismal covenant) effectively bestowed on them the possession of forgiveness and eternal life, provided they fulfilled the conditions of the covenant. In Baxterian teaching, as will be seen, this had very important implications for the doctrine of justification.
Keach’s contribution to the controversy was therefore primarily that of a pastor and preacher. All that he published on the issue originated in sermons that he preached, first of all to his own congregation in Southwark, and sometimes as the result of specific questions asked by members of his congregation. He published them because he was pressed to do so in the interests of seeing the truth more widely dispersed. He was not driven by any desire to promote himself by proving himself an able disputer. Keach was no lover of controversy. On one occasion (dealing with paedobaptism) he declared,
For my part I hope I can say I love them in whom I see the Image of God, that differ from me, in the like degree as those of my own opinion. I am persuaded the want of Love to one another is one of the greatest Sins of this Age and that which is a high Provocation to God.[8]Specifically, in the Baxterian controversy Keach expressed his longings for peace and unity, but never at the expense of truth. He trembled, fearful that “the Design is to wound the Truth and us,” but continued, “O when shall we see that Truth, Peace, and Union longed for!”[9] The truth of God and his gospel was paramount for Benjamin Keach, but that did not prevent him from strenuous efforts to maintain truth, peace, and unity, even when he was embroiled in controversy. Driven by such convictions Keach ably defended the biblical doctrine of justification by faith.
The Background to the ‘Baxterian’ Controversy
Keach identified three men in particular (though he acknowledged that there were others) who he believed were teaching a doctrine of justification partly by works: “Mr. Baxter, Mr. Williams, Mr. Clark of Wickham.”[10] Concluding that these were the three most significant men, he chose to focus on them. Keach’s contributions were part of a series of replies and counter-replies that were exchanged between the two sides of the controversy during the 1690s. Others included in this controversy were Isaac Chauncy, Robert Traill, Thomas Goodwin Jr., Thomas Cole, Nathaniel Mather, and Stephen Lobb. Peter Toon also mentions Thomas Edwards (1649–1700) as the only other Particular Baptist who was engaged in the controversy. He was not from London but was rather a Welshman and a member of the Wrexham Nonconformist Church, where Daniel Williams had once been a member.[11] However, his particular contribution came at the end of the controversy and was published in 1699 entitled, The Paraselene Dismantled of her Cloud, or, Baxterianism Barefaced.
Thus we can see the importance of Keach’s role in this controversy as far as the London Particular Baptists were concerned. Not only did he set out to defend the orthodox doctrine of justification by faith and oppose the new law teaching of Baxter, but-as a Baptist-he also exposed the shortcomings of the baptismal covenant notions of Baxter and Williams. The other men who sought to defend the orthodox doctrine of justification were Independents and Presbyterians and were paedobaptists by conviction.
The immediate occasion which produced the controversy was the reprinting of the sermons of Tobias Crisp (1600–1643), Christ Alone Exalted, in 1690. Keach was not in complete agreement with Crisp, but said that he would rather “erre on their side, who strive to exalt wholly the Free Grace of God, than on theirs, who seek to darken it and magnifie the Power of the Creature.”[12] Keach would certainly have disagreed with Crisp’s sometimes confusing statements on eternal justification as being our actual justification, and would not have left himself open to the charge of Antinomianism as perhaps Crisp did through saying very little about the place of the moral law in the life of the Christian. However, Keach felt he had far more in common with Crisp because Crisp had a clear grasp of justification by faith.
Baxter’s disagreements with Crisp were very different from those of Keach. When Crisp’s sermons were reprinted, Baxter was lecturer at Pinners’ Hall. Baxter died in 1691, but in his last days he described these sermons as antinomian, just as he had when they were first published in 1643. In 1645 Baxter had become an army chaplain. To his horror he discovered a prevailing spiritual laxity which he believed was prompted by writings like those of Tobias Crisp and John Saltmarsh[13] (who had also been a chaplain in Cromwell’s army). Baxter laid the blame for this laxity at the door of the Antinomians. He became persuaded that those who taught free grace and a once-for-all justification on the grounds of a divine righteousness imputed to them left the door wide open for men who believed themselves justified to live as they pleased. He was convinced that their view of justification was responsible for the laxity that he had perceived because it undermined the need for personal holiness. Baxter began to rethink his position. By 1649 he had reached his conclusions and published them as Aphorismes of Justification, with their Explication annexed.[14] A reading of his aphorisms confirms that Baxter reacted strongly to the laxity he rightly perceived in the writings of men like Crisp and Saltmarsh. In fact, however, he over-reacted and rejected the biblical doctrine of justification. He was at odds with the recently published Westminster Confession of Faith, and held firmly to his own convictions until his death. Throughout his life he found himself under attack but remained impervious to change. Baxter’s views have recently been summarised in the following way:
Baxter’s gospel presents Christ’s death as an act of universal redemption, penal and vicarious though not strictly substitutionary, in virtue of which God has made a new law offering amnesty to penitent breakers of the old law. As obedience to the new law, repentance and faith are one’s personal saving righteousness, which effectual calling induces and preserving grace sustains. Called ‘Neonomianism’, this scheme is substantially Amyraldian, with Arminian ‘new law’ teaching added.[15]It was these views, first promoted by Baxter, that were adopted by Daniel Williams (1644–1712) and Samuel Clarke (1626–1701). Williams was a Welshman and a Presbyterian who came to London in 1687 after twenty years in Dublin. Once in London he became closely associated with Baxter and preached for him when he was indisposed. On Baxter’s death he succeeded him as lecturer at Pinners’ Hall and also pastored a church in New Broad Street, Petty France. He became the leading voice of “Baxterianism” after Baxter’s death. He was critical of Tobias Crisp and was already preaching against “antinomian errors” before he entered into print. He wrote four books in the period 1692–1699: Gospel Truth stated and vindicated (1692), A defence of gospel truth (1693), Man made righteous by Christ’s obedience (1694), and An end to discord (1699).
Samuel Clarke was an annotator of the Bible and a pastor in Wycombe[16] in Buckinghamshire. He had been responsible, together with Edward Veale, for amending the fourth edition of Matthew Poole’s commentary. In 1698 he published his views in Scripture Justification. Keach was very quick to provide a critical review of Clarke’s contribution, publishing it twice in 1698, first in A medium betwixt two extremes, and then again in Christ Alone the way to Heaven.
Keach did not live long enough to see the full effects of the “new law” teaching of Baxter, Williams, and Clarke, but there is no doubt that he and others were right to oppose it. Keach was happy to identify himself clearly with biblical Christian orthodoxy, subscribing to The Second London Confession of Faith (2nd LCF) and subsequently drawing up Articles of the Faith for the church at Horselydown, something Baxter would never had done. It is significant that Baxter objected to almost all creeds (apart from the Apostle’s Creed) and while he had a high personal regard for the Westminster divines he thought that to impose their views on others was dangerous, divisive, and destructive.
The fact is that Baxter’s views proved to be the ones that were dangerous, divisive, and destructive, especially (but not exclusively) among Presbyterians. Nonconformist historians have accurately observed that “by denouncing what he regarded as the irrationality of Antinomianism, Baxter had modified Calvinism in a way which opened him to the charge of Arminianism, and among the next generation of Presbyterian ministers were those who insisted on free will as well as free grace to an extent that made nonsense of the Calvinist scheme.”[17]
His views were in effect a reaction against Calvinism and undermined the achievements of the Protestant Reformation. Keach, on the other hand, was persuaded that Martin Luther and John Owen were two of the greatest lights in the church of the last 200 years. The principal reason for this persuasion was their defence and proclamation of justification by faith alone. On more than one occasion Keach pointed out that “Baxterian” doctrine, making faith and sincere obedience our justifying righteousness, was “much like Bellarmine,” the leading exponent of Roman Catholic theology against Protestantism after the Council of Trent.[18] Surely then, Keach and others were right to oppose Baxterianism.
‘That Strange and New Scheme That Darkens the Free-Grace of God’
In 1689, at the Particular Baptist General Assembly, Benjamin Keach was one of the signatories of the 2nd LCF. The confession’s statement on justification by faith provides an accurate summary of the Reformed doctrine of justification and stands together with the Westminster standards of the Presbyterians and The Savoy Declaration of the Independents as a mature and balanced summary of biblical teaching. Within the confines of this article it is not possible to examine the key passages of Scripture and provide details of how each of them were interpreted by both parties involved in this controversy. Rather, our concern is to consider the conclusions the two parties reached, and to assess what they taught. The 2nd LCF states the following with regard to justification:
- Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience to the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
- Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.[19]
This stands in stark contrast to the teaching of the Reformed confessions. Baxter and others appeared to be trying to formulate a theology of the Christian life that maintained tight links between faith and obedience, justification and sanctification, forgiveness and perseverance. Baxter in particular had a legitimate concern with a real Antinomianism that so emphasised free grace and once-for-all justification that obedience and holiness were seriously neglected. However, he reacted too far by insisting that obedience and holiness were a part of the believer’s justification. Furthermore, his understanding of the work of Christ (which ought to have been the foundation of his theology of the Christian life) was seriously flawed, as was the building that he then tried to erect on that foundation. He was building on a sandy foundation by rejecting the obedience and righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer as the grounds of our justification. Instead of promoting the truth he was trying to defend, he ended up attacking and destroying the very heart of the gospel. Keach, on the other hand, built his foundation on the work of Christ, on his active and passive obedience imputed to the believer by faith, as taught in Rom. 5.19. Keach also wished to maintain the tight link between justification and sanctification. He would never deny that obedience and personal holiness were necessary to salvation, but he firmly insisted that anything done by us was to be excluded from justification. As the Confession stated, faith is the sole instrument of justification, but-where faith is present-it is “ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.”
According to Keach, Baxterianism was a serious error, sowed seeds of confusion in people’s minds, and had a strong tendency to create a false assurance of salvation. Such assurance built its hope not on Christ and free grace, but on sincere obedience and human effort. What happened, for example, to a Christian’s assurance if he was not sincere or omitted to do certain good works? Justification became more a matter of human performance rather than complete reliance on Jesus Christ. An indignant Keach protested that such teaching was far removed from apostolic doctrine. Keach was jealous to maintain that justification depended entirely on the free grace of God. In the closing words of a lecture on one of the parables Keach pleaded with his hearers and explained to them the dangers of Baxterianism in the following terms:
And to you, sinners, if you would be found wheat in the day of Christ, then receive Christ’s true doctrine, labour to distinguish between truth and error; beware of that strange and new scheme that darkens the free-grace of God, and tends to destroy the covenant of grace; remember to exalt Christ alone in your salvation. How do some turn the gospel of God’s free grace into a law, by the performance of which, as the conditions of life and justification, tell thee, thy salvation doth depend. See what subtle opposers (of the clearest gospel) are risen up amongst us, and labour to avoid them; though their tongues should seem to be tipped with silver, yet their doctrine is copper.[20]There are dangers in simply quoting any of Baxter’s eighty theses outlined in his Aphorismes. It is sometimes difficult to determine precisely what he means and to be always certain that one is fairly representing his views. Baxter’s Aphorismes, together with his other writings on the subject of justification, make heavy demands on the reader. No less than Andrew Fuller complained that some of Baxter’s productions were “circuitous, and full of artificial distinctions, and obscure terms, [so] that I could not in many cases come at his meaning, nor could I have read them through without making myself ill.”[21] Nevertheless, in order to demonstrate that Keach was not mistaken in his assessment, some of those theses and their “explications” follow:[22]
Thesis 23. In this sence also, it is so far from being an error to affirm, that [Faith it self is our Righteousness,] that it is a truth necessary for every Christian to know; that is, Faith is our Evangelical Righteousness, (in the sence before explained,) as Christ is our Legal Righteousness.[23]In his ‘Explication’ he makes it clear that there must be a personal righteousness and that faith is that very righteousness. He continues:
The fulfilling of the conditions of each Covenant is our Righteousness, in reference to that Covenant: But Faith is the fulfilling of the conditions of the new Covenant, therefore it is our Righteousness in relation to that covenant. I do not here take Faith for any one single Act, but I shall afterward explain it.
Quest. In what sence then is Faith said to be imputed to us for Righteousness, if it be our Righteousness it self?
Answ. Plainly thus; Man is become unrighteous by breaking the Law of Righteousness that was given him; Christ fully satisfieth for this transgression, and buyeth the prisoners into his own hands, and maketh with them a new Covenant, That whosoever will accept of him, and believe in him, who hath thus satisfied, it shall be as effectual for their Justification, as if they had fulfilled the Law of Works themselves.[24]Baxter intends us to understand by this that the righteousness that actually justifies a person is his or her own faith; faith is one of the conditions of justification which we must satisfy. Later on, in Thesis 73, he claims that faith is only the first and principal part of our justification and that there are other secondary conditions.
Faith only justifieth as it implieth and includeth all other parts of the condition of the new Covenant…Faith onely doth not justify in opposition to the Works of the Gospel; but those Works do also justify, as the secondary, less principal parts of the condition of the Covenant.[25]If we then ask what are these other secondary conditions, Thesis 77 provides the answer: “we are justified by sincere obedience to Christ, as the secondary part of the Condition of our Justification.”[26] (Baxter then provides what he considers to be scriptural proof for this assertion). Thesis 78 affirms “Our full Justification, and our Everlasting Salvation have the same conditions on our part. But sincere Obedience is without doubt, a Condition of our Salvation: therefore also of our Justification.”[27]
Thesis 80 provides us with Baxter’s conclusion to this matter. He states:
It is most clear in the Scriptures, and beyond all dispute, that our Actual, most proper, compleat Justification, at the great Judgment, will be according to our Works, and to what we have done in the flesh, whether Good or Evil: which can be no otherwise then as it was the Condition of that justification. And so Christ, at that great Assize, will not give his bare Will of Purpose, as the Reason of his proceedings: but as he governed by a Law; so he will judge by a Law: and will then give the Reason of his Publique Sentence from men’s keeping or breaking the Conditions of the Covenant: that so the mouths of all may be stopped, and the equity of his judgment may be manifest to all, and that he may there show forth his hatred to the sins, and not onely to the persons of the condemned; and his Love to the Obedience, and not onely to the persons Justified.[28]Keach was not mistaken, nor were others who opposed Baxter. This certainly is not the teaching found in the writings of the Reformers or in the Reformed confessions of faith. Baxter makes faith the Christian’s righteousness and his works a significant part of his justification. In effect he has reproduced the Roman Catholic view that confuses justification with sanctification. Daniel Williams followed the same track as Baxter and makes similar statements. For example, Williams states that “Salvation is promised to Perseverance, True Holiness, sincere Obedience or Good Works: and the Accomplishment of these Promises to these is called an Act of Righteousness. These are Gospel-Promises; because Salvation is promised on Terms below Perfection.”[29] Williams, like Baxter, treats justification and sanctification as essentially one and the same thing.
We are first made Righteous in that we pass from being guilty to being Pardoned. In the sense of the second particular, we are made Righteous partly in our Effectual Vocation, and partly in our Progressive Sanctification and Perseverance. This is by the efficiency of the Spirit of Christ enclining and enabling us to the performance of the respective Gospel Conditions: he enableth us to believe for Justification, to Repent for Pardon, to Persevere in Faith and True Holiness for the Possession of Eternal Glory. Both of these are by the Obedience of Christ.[30]Of the three men whose teaching Keach opposed, Samuel Clarke, made what are probably some of the plainest statements as to the Baxterian understanding of justification and the place of faith and obedience. Clarke seeks to establish a twofold justification in a very similar fashion to Williams. There is a general and first justification when a person passes from an unjustified into a justified state, but then-in addition-there is a particular, renewed and repeated justification when any particular act is approved of God and a person is accounted righteous because of that act.[31] As with Baxter, Clarke fails to distinguish between justification and sanctification. Elsewhere Clarke states that faith and sincere obedience are the grounds of the believer’s justification, “that we are justified only by that Faith which has Obedience in the Loins and Womb of it: which is pregnant with Holiness: which is apta nata to bear Fruit in its season, i.e. is a principle of good Works, and as it is productive of Gospel-Obedience.”[32] In keeping with Baxter’s statement regarding final justification, Clarke suggests that justification is gradual and will not be complete until the day of appearance at the judgment seat of Christ. He affirms this by stating that “our justification at present, while we are in this World is but Partial, Imperfect and Incompleat, and that we shall not obtain full, compleat, intire and final Justification from all the Effects of Sin, till the Day of Judgment.”[33]
A few years after Keach came to London he crossed swords with Baxter over the matter of baptism. In the controversy now under consideration, he also took Baxter and Williams to task over their understanding of the baptismal covenant.[34] In his sermons on Rom. 4:5 (his Marrow sermons) he complained that they said that justification depends on fulfilling the terms of the covenant of grace which is nothing less than
to make good this Baptismal Covenant, viz. sincerely to love, believe, obey, worship, and serve the Lord; so that Faith alone as it receives Christ, or helps us to fly to Christ, and relie on Christ, is not the alone way or condition (if it may be so termed) on our part in order to actual Interest in Jesus Christ and Justification; but also the whole of Gospel-Obedience in order thereunto, as Faith. Sirs, we deny not but that Obedience and Personal Holiness is necessary to Salvation, or in order to a meetness for an actual Possession of Heaven: But we must exclude all inherent Holiness or Works of Obedience done by us, in point of Justification., Pray mind my Text, But to him that worketh not but believeth.[35]Keach was particularly critical of Williams, who had declared “the non-performance of the Baptismal Covenant the damning sin, the heart of all sin.”[36] This criticism drew Williams into a brief but spirited reply in which he not only objected to Keach’s evaluation but even more to the spirit in which he wrote. Williams never answered Keach but instead asserted that he “batters in the dark.” He was also clearly pained that Keach had warned everyone against hearing him. He concluded by asking that the Lord would humble and forgive Keach![37]
Was Keach blindly prejudiced against Baxter and Williams because of his firm adherence to believer’s baptism? For Keach’s opponents, baptism was the means of entry into the covenant of grace. The baptismal covenant was conditional and required men’s participation. This, said Keach, was distinct from what Christ engaged to do for us and in us in the covenant of redemption. They believed that baptism was foundational for justification, that it is the means that Christ had appointed for the recovery of sinners. Those baptized were placed under obligation to obey the law of the gospel. This is why Williams called the non-performance of the baptismal covenant “the damning sin, the heart of all sin.” Keach insisted that the Scriptures taught that unbelief was the condemning sin, not the non-performance of this baptismal covenant. Baxter, however, affirmed that it was the soundest doctrine.
That Gods taking the Children of the Faithful into Covenant with him, and becoming their God and taking them for his own, doth signifie no less a state of Grace, and pardon and right to life eternal; and that they are in this state upon their Parents Consent and heart-devoting them to God in Christ, before baptism, but baptism is the solemnizing and investiture, which openly coram Ecclesia delivereth them possession of their visible Church-state with a sealed pardon and gift of life.[38]For both Baxter and Williams the faith that justifies is directly related to the performing of the conditions of the baptismal covenant. James Renihan provides this most telling and conclusive quotation from Baxter about the faith that justifies.
The faith by which we are justified, as is aforesaid, is best understood by the Baptismal-Covenant, and is essentially a Believing Fiducial consent to our Covenant relation to God the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost, as our Reconciled Creator and Father, our Saviour and our Sancyfier, connoting the forsaking of all inconsistents. For it must needs be the same faith by which we are justified; because we have our remission and justification by the Instrumental donation of the Covenant, it being one of the benefits given by it: But Practical Faith, or Believing-consent is our condition of receiving our Covenant right to all the benefits in general; therefore to Justification in particular.[39]Keach had also read this or something similar and was critical of Baxter’s view. He understood Baxter correctly when he said that he “seems to lay the whole stress of our first Justification to what is promised in our Baptismal Covenant.”[40] Elsewhere, Keach asks:
How are these Men left of God, to darkness of their own minds, not only to affirm the Conditionality of the Covenant of Grace, rendering it no better than a new Covenant of Works, but also to make this devised and voluntary Infant Baptismal-Covenant to be the only Condition of it, and of our Justification in the sight of God?[41]Furthermore, he pointed out that Christ is the immediate object of our faith and that, although faith in the Father and the Holy Spirit are directly connected,
’tis by him (Christ) that we come to God, and believe in God, and are justified and accepted of God, other foundation (of these things) can no man lay. But Mr. Baxter speaks nothing of this, but of a Faith in general in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; which Faith he says is reputed truly to be the Condition on our part on which Christ and Life by that Baptismal Covenant is made ours.[42]Keach was not blinded by his convictions about believer’s baptism when he opposed Williams and Baxter’s theology of justification and the baptismal covenant. Keach had a very different doctrine of the church than Baxter and Williams. He would never have made baptism of the children of believers the means of entry into the covenant of grace. Rather, the door of entry was regeneration and faith in Jesus Christ. Addressing Christian parents in his congregation, he told them that
as to your bringing your Children into the Visible Church, so as to be Members thereof, and to have right to the holy Sacraments, they must come in at the door of Regeneration, not by Generation; even at the same Door you came in at if you are true Members thereof: and O therefore pray for your Children, they are dear to you, bring them up in the Fear of God, command them to seek after the Knowledge of their Natural State, and to know and believe in Jesus Christ, and set them a good Example. I know not what better Counsel to give you concerning your Children.[43]Keach’s view of baptism was very different from that expressed by Baxter and Williams. He firmly rejected their infant baptismal covenant and clearly distinguished what he was persuaded was the difference between them: the one springs from a living and spiritual principle, the other from dead works.
... for your Brethren the Pedo-Baptists tell you that Baptism obligeth such as are baptized to believe, and to become new Creatures, not that they were such that then did not believe etc. And from hence it followeth, that it is one of those Works of Acts of Obedience that go before Faith, and therefore a dead Work, and pleaseth not God (as well as not required of him); for all Works before Faith, or Union with Christ, are dead Works, they not proceeding from a Spiritual Vital Principle.
It therefore appears from hence, that Infant’s Baptismal-Covenant is directly repugnant to Christ’s true Baptismal-Covenant: For Evident it is that Christ’s baptism belongs only to Believers who are renewed, regenerated, and have Union with Christ, and so in a justified State before baptized.: Our Baptism doth not oblige us to believe and be regenerated, or to die to Sin, as such that were not dead before; but it is a sign of that Faith and Death unto Sin we had when we were baptized, or to shew that they were then dead to Sin, etc. How shall we that are dead to Sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into his Death? Or as being dead with him, Therefore we are buried with him into Death, Rom. 6, 2, 2, 4. Not buried alive or whilst dead in Sin: No, but as being dead to Sin. Not to oblige us to be regenerated, but, as Persons who are regenerated before, buried in Baptism. And the Covenant of Baptism is, to walk in newness of Life, as before being quickened, That like as Christ was raised from the dead by the Glory of the Father, so we should walk in newness of Life.[44]Keach’s assessment of Baxterianism is evident throughout his sermons on justification and his works on baptism. He was a discerning judge of the issues at stake. His language was plain and at times colourful. For example, he describes those who are tainted with the errors of Arminianism and Baxterianism as those who “strive to mix the King’s wine with their muddy water, or mix their polluted works with God’s free grace.”[45] Again, he describes them as “law and works mongers” or “new Work-Mongers.” He does not hesitate to identify their teaching as “Poisonous notion” or “poisonous and abominable Doctrines.” He felt he could no longer call them true gospel ministers because what they taught was “Popery in a new dress,” “partial apostacy,” and a “bold and bare-faced attack against this grand fundamental of Christianity (i.e. justification).”[46]
In his preaching Keach consistently and stridently opposed any notion that works played a role in the justification of sinners. He was insistent that the Scripture way of justification was the way of free grace and that sinners are justified by a perfect righteousness, that of Jesus Christ. These are some of the reasons that he gives for the total exclusion of works from the justification of sinners: the very letter and express testimony of Scripture excludes all boasting (Rom. 3:27, 4:2); Scripture says we are justified by grace (Rom. 11:6); faith is the way prescribed in the gospel for justification, not love or works of mercy (Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9); because we are justified by a perfect righteousness and as no-one is righteous then no-one can be justified by his works; when we have done all we can we are still unprofitable servants, thus our best works of obedience and service cannot justify us (Lk. 17:10); it is by the obedience of the one Man many are made righteous (Rom. 5:19–20); Christ is offered to sinners as sinners and not as righteous persons. Keach said that Baxterianism talked about the good fruits that must be present in people’s lives before they have closed with Christ, and about the sincere obedience performed by an unregenerate person. In contrast, said Keach, “we do not tell you, you must be holy and then believe in Jesus Christ; but that you must believe in him, that you may be holy. You must first have Union with him, before you can bring forth Fruit to God; you must act from Life, and not for Life.”[47]
In that same sermon Keach urged sinners to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. The manner in which he pleads marks him out as a true gospel minister, and is typical of his reasoning and pleading as he freely offered Christ.
Therefore Sinners, though ’tis your Duty to reform your Lives, and leave your abominable Sins, which often bring heavy Judgments upon you in this World, and expose you to eternal wrath in the World to come; yet know that all that you can do, will fail in point of your Acceptation and Justification in God’s sight, or to save your Souls: Your present Work and Business is to believe in Jesus Christ, to look to him, who only can renew his sacred Image in your souls, and make you New Creatures, which must be done, or you perish. O cry that he would help your Unbelief: Come venture your souls on Christ’s Righteousness: Christ is able to save you though you are never so great Sinners. Come to him, throw your selves at the Feet of Jesus: Look to Jesus, who came to seek and save them that were lost; If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink, Joh. 7:37, 38. You may have Water of Life freely. Do not say I want Qualifications or a Meetness to come to Christ. Sinner, dost thou thirst? Dost thou see a want of Righteousness? ’Tis not a Righteousness; but ’tis a sense of the want of Righteousness, which is rather the qualification, that thou shouldst look at: Christ hath Righteousness sufficient to cloathe you; Bread of Life to feed you, Grace to adorn you; or whatsoever you want, it is to be had in him. We tell you there is help in him, Salvation in him, through the Propitiation in his Blood you must be justified, which is by Faith alone.[48]Reflections and Observations From This Controversy
There is little point in studying the history of the church and the struggles and controversies that have been part of her experience unless we are prepared to learn from these events. First, then, we should learn from Keach (and from others who were also engaged in opposing Baxterianism) that they doing what every generation of Christians, and in particular pastors and preachers, must do. They set out to fulfil their responsibility to teach and defend biblical doctrine (in this case the truth of justification by faith alone). The writings of Keach in the 1690s clearly demonstrate that he accomplished this in a faithful and able manner.
Second, despite the complexities and intricacies of argument used during the controversy, the issue of justification is basically simple. The question is: “How can a man be acquitted of his sin, forgiven and accepted with God?” There are only two possible answers. A man is either justified because of his own faith, his repentance, his renewed nature, his sincere obedience, and his actual works of righteousness, or he is justified on the basis of the obedience, righteousness, satisfaction, and merit of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, our mediator, the surety of the covenant of grace, whose righteousness is imputed to us. Keach never lost sight of this simple distinction in his preaching.
We say, that Justification of a Sinner, is the acceptance of his Person, or the pronouncing him Just and Righteous in God’s sight, through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ, whereby he hath a full Right and Title to Eternal Life. They say, That Justification is nothing else but the pardon of sin, i.e. the not executing the Punishment of Sin due by the Law of Works, and an acceptance of a Man so long as he performeth the New Condition of Sincere Obedience.[49]Third, it is easy to become impatient, wearied, and unrealistic about controversy in the church. The question might be asked, “Why is it so hard for the church to get the doctrine of justification by faith right?” Richard Baxter got it seriously wrong and he was not the first nor the last in church history to do so. Baxter was the one major figure in the Puritan movement to be so mistaken, although he profoundly influenced others like Daniel Williams and the subsequent generation of Presbyterians. It is salutary and necessary to remember that people got the doctrine of justification wrong in apostolic days. No one taught more clearly the doctrine of justification by faith than the apostle Paul. In Gal. 1:12, referring to the gospel that he preached, he made it abundantly clear that “I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Yet the Galatians were confused over the doctrine and in danger of being sucked into a works-based salvation. Acts 15 reflects the same danger: Paul and Barnabas “had no small dissension and dispute” with those of the circumcision party (Acts 15:2). This led to the meeting of the Jerusalem Council, which affirmed that circumcision and law-keeping were not required of the newly converted Gentiles. Controversy is inevitable. Certain Scripture passages are central in understanding justification by faith and should always be prominent in explaining the biblical doctrine and in refuting error. Such passages as Rom. 3:20–28; 4:1–8; 5:18–21; Gal. 2:16; 3:21–22; and Eph. 2:8–10 clearly declare the work of Christ as the basis of our justification and that teach us that justification is by faith over against works.
Fourth, men are often driven to extremes in controversy. Zeal for truth (and sometimes worse principles) may lead to misshapen doctrine. Baxter was reacting to the Antinomianism which he found in Saltmarsh and which he thought he found in Crisp. He set himself to work and produced Aphorismes of Justification within a few years. By now his views were settled and he did not alter them for the rest of his life, despite all that was said and written against them. The tragedy for Baxter was that, having reacted to one extreme, he ended up going to another. It is interesting to reflect that Keach read the same Saltmarsh. Writing in 1692 he recalled, “When I was Lad, I was greatly taken with a Book called, The flowing of Christ’s Blood freely to Sinners, as Sinners.”[50] Keach here suggests that to a large extent he learned his doctrine of justification by faith from reading Saltmarsh. Yet he did not imbibe his Antinomianism. Neither did Keach become extreme in his doctrine. As far as can be determined from his writings on justification, he remained orthodox all his life. On the one hand, he did not espouse the notion that eternal justification was man’s actual justification, and on the other hand, he steered well clear of salvation by works and Antinomianism. It is not possible to do more than surmise why Keach was not driven to extremes like Baxter, though personality and temperament may have played a role.
Fifth, it is significant that Baxter had an aversion to creeds and confessions of faith. Confessions were a new kind of church document in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. They were declarations of the corporate faith of the church and churches subscribed to them because they were persuaded that these confessions agreed with the teaching of the Word of God in the subject matter they presented. In England, the Presbyterians, the Independents, and the Particular Baptists all drew up their own confessions of faith. There was considerable unanimity expressed in these documents, especially in the statements relating to justification by faith. They were drawn up in order to present to the world what they believed as churches and also to provide answers against their opponents and critics. Baxter’s attitude to confessions of faith only isolated him further from the truth of justification by faith. Sadly, today there is a similar suspicion of and adverse reaction to creeds and confessions, with many regarding them as obsolete and curbing independence of mind. In an age characterised by a pride that produces excessive individualism (including theological individualism), is it not more likely that individuals will be driven to extremes and imperil their own souls by neglecting the corporate and ecclesiological character of confessions of faith? If the confessions from the 1600s were accurate in stating the biblical and apostolic truth, especially in such an important matter as justification by faith, then they remain valid for today’s generation because the truth does not change. This is not to say that a church’s confession of faith may not be changed to reflect a better understanding of the Scriptures, but that is not the business of one individual.
Sixth, having considered the Baxterian controversy of the 1690s, it is possible to show that despite claims that there is now a “new perspective” on justification, there is in fact very little that is new. Keach said that Baxter sounded “much like Bellarmine.” It is sobering to realise that some of the arguments and language used in the present debate are very similar, at times almost identical, to those used just over three hundred years ago. James Renihan reports that he read a portion of Keach’s Marrow sermons to some theologically astute pastors and asked them to identify the date and the author. They guessed it was from our own day.[51] The truth is that what is deemed new is in fact old; the problem is more one of human ignorance and perhaps pride. These issues have already been considered and have already been well answered.
Finally, it should be remembered that in the last analysis it is God who justifies (Rom. 8:33). Men may hope that they are justified in their own eyes and in the eyes of others by their sincere obedience and good works, but no one can be justified in God’s sight by such means. Failure to understand justification by faith alone often results from a failure to understand the holiness of God and his uncompromising demand for perfection and righteousness which is met only in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.[52] If the church becomes forgetful of the fact that it is God who justifies, then she is exposing herself to grave dangers: of losing sight of remaining sin even in the regenerate by promoting an inflated view of human righteousness; of losing sight of faith that looks away from self to Jesus Christ alone; of losing the assurance of faith and giving way to uncertainty, fear, and even despair; and, of losing the gospel, not to mention genuine gospel preaching and the free offer of the gospel that is such a vital part of that preaching. Keach was a free grace, free offer preacher. May God raise up many like him in our day.
Notes
- For a full account of his life see Austin Walker, The Excellent Benjamin Keach (Dundas, ON: Joshua Press, 2004).
- Keach once commented that “by the Baxterian Party I expect to be called an Antinomian.” See Keach, The Display of Glorious Grace (London, 1698), v.
- Keach, The Display of Glorious Grace, 76–77.
- Keach, The Marrow of True Justification (London, 1692), 1–2.
- Ibid., 3.
- Ibid.,17.
- Keach, “The marriage supper,” in Expositions of the Parables: Series Two (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1991), 156.
- Keach, A Counter-antidote to purge out the Malignant Effects of a late Counterfeit, prepared by Mr. Gyles Shute (London, 1694), 3. Gyles Shute was a paedobaptist and a member of Matthew Mead’s congregation in Stepney who had written stridently against believer’s baptism and Keach.
- Keach, The Marrow of Justification, Epistle Dedicatory. The ‘Happy Union’ between Presbyterians and Independents was effectively wrecked by the Neonomian controversy. See Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 296–297.
- Keach, The Display of Glorious Grace, 77. Toon also identified William Lorimer, Vincent Alsop, John Humfrey, and two Anglicans, John Edwards of Cambridge and Edward Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, as those who followed Richard Baxter and Daniel Williams. See Peter Toon, The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689–1765 (London: The Olive Tree, 1967), 53.
- Ibid., 53, 67.
- Keach, The Marrow of True Justification, Epistle Dedicatory.
- Saltmarsh had much greater antinomian tendencies than Crisp. Baxter had far better grounds for identifying Saltmarsh as antinomian that he did for Crisp. However, he lumped them together because of their teaching on free grace and justification on the basis of Christ’s righteousness.
- For an analysis of Baxter’s aphorisms see James M. Renihan, “Reforming the Reformed Pastor: Baptism and Justification as the Basis for Richard Baxter’s Pastoral Method,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2.1 (2005), 111–134.
- J.I. Packer, “Baxter, Richard,” in New Dictionary of Theology, ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David E. Wright (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 82–83. For a fuller explanation of the background to Baxter’s view see, J.I. Packer, A Quest for Godliness: The Puritan Vision of the Christian Life (Wheaton: Crossway, 1990), 156–160, and Hans Boersema, A Hot Peppercorn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in its Seventeenth Century Context of Controversy (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1993).
- This is the modern spelling.
- Michael R. Watts, The Dissenters from the Reformation to the French Revolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978), 376–377. Watts is quoting Roger Thomas, “The Break-up of Nonconformity,” Geoffrey Nuttall (and others), in The Beginnings of Nonconformity (London: J. Clarke, 1964), 49–50.
- Keach, A Medium betwixt Two Extremes (London 1698), 38.
- 2nd LCF 11.1-2.
- Keach, “The Fan in his hand,” in Expositions of the Parables: Series One (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1991), 52.
- The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, 2:714. Reprinted from the Third London Edition; revised, with additions, by Joseph Belcher, D.D. (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1988).
- Readers who do not have access to Baxter’s Aphorismes can read many of them in the afore-mentioned article, James M. Renihan, “Reforming the Reformed Pastor,” 111–134.
- Richard Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification, with their Explication Annexed (London, 1649), 125.
- Ibid., 126-127.
- Ibid., 289-290.
- Ibid., 310.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., 317-318.
- Daniel Williams, Gospel-Truth Stated (London, 1692), 139.
- Daniel Williams, Man Made Righteous by Christ’s Obedience (London, 1694), 51.
- Samuel Clarke, Scripture-Justification: or a Discourse of Justification, according to the Evidence of Scripture-light (London, 1698), 81–82.
- Ibid., 62.
- Ibid., 18.
- Keach, The Marrow of True Justification, 13–15.
- Ibid., 14.
- Ibid.
- Daniel Williams, A Defence of Gospel Truth (London, 1693), To the Reader.
- Richard Baxter, More Proofs of Infants Church-membership and Consequently their Right to Baptism (London, 1675), 206.
- Renihan, 120. Renihan is quoting Baxter, Catholicke Theologie (London, 1675), II:55, Sect VI.106. Readers are directed to the heart of his article that deals in detail with Baxter’s view of baptism and justification.
- Keach, The Marrow of True Justification, 13.
- From a letter “To all Godly Christians who are Pedo-Baptists in South and North-Wales,” in Keach, Light Broke Forth in Wales, Expelling Darkness; or, The Englishman’s Love to the Ancient Britains (London, 1696).
- Ibid., 13.
- Keach, Light broke forth in Wales, 124.
- From a letter “To all Godly Christians who are Pedo-Baptists in South and North-Wales,” in Keach, Light Broke Forth in Wales.
- Keach, “The marriage supper,” in Expositions of the Parables: Series Two, 151.
- Quotations like these are scattered throughout the works of Keach.
- Keach, The Marrow of True Justification, 37.
- Ibid.
- Keach, The Display of Glorious Grace, 83.
- Keach, The Marrow of True Justification, 8.
- Renihan, 112.
- I am not suggesting that this was the reason Baxter failed to understand justification by faith; this is a much broader consideration.
KEACH - A wonderful find
ReplyDelete