Reforming The Reformed Pastor: Baptism and Justification as the Basis for Richard Baxter’s Pastoral Method

By James M. Renihan

James M. Renihan, Ph.D., is Dean of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies, Westminster Theological Seminary in California, Escondido, CA.

We say obedience supposeth a man justified; but these men say, that obedience concurs with faith to justify, or is part of our righteousness to justification: we affirm, as a worthy divine observes, that faith alone perfectly justifies, by trusting in the righteousness of Christ; so that there is no condemnation to them who are in Jesus Christ, Rom. 8.1 or truly believe in him; but they teach that faith and obedience justifie only, as the conditions of the Gospel, i.e. as thereby we doing what the Gospel requires of us.. .. Mr. Baxter. .. saith, that this condition (viz. the Covenant of Grace, by which we have right to the benefits of it) is our faith [mark it] or Christianity, as it is meant by Christ in the Baptismal Covenant, viz. to give up our selves in Covenant, believing in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing the contraries; and that though this consent to the Christian Covenant (called faith alone) be the full condition of our first right to the benefit of that Covenant (of which justification is one,) yet obediential performances, and conquest of temptations, and perseverance, are secondary parts of the condition of our right, as continued and consummated;. .. Moreover, tis worth noting to observe how Mr. Baxter seems to lay the whole stress of our first justification to what is promised in our baptismal covenant, wherein we profess faith in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. — Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification. Or, Justification without Works, 12–13.

Some may think that I have embarked on a fool’s mission in writing this article. Of all the famous divines of the late Puritan era, Richard Baxter is regularly placed in the first rank. The encomiums for his practical works are legion, his admirers are among the most-respected writers of the last two centuries, and several of his works continue to sell at brisk rates among those interested in practical Christianity.

Despite these realities, three factors have led me to stay the course. The first factor is my own awareness that, in his day, Richard Baxter was considered by many to be among the most controversial of theologians. Some of the best and brightest of the era believed that his theological system was heretical, and his views came under sustained criticism throughout his lifetime and beyond. While subsequent generations may (at least in popular opinion) consider Baxter at one with the great Puritan writers of the Seventeenth Century, that was not the case in his own lifetime. The second factor is my own growing amazement at the parallel that exists between Baxter’s views and those being proposed in our own generation. I have twice read the first part of the quote above to groups of theologically astute pastors, asking them to identify the date and author. They guessed that it was from our own day! Contemporary deviations on justification, rooted in a faulty baptismal formula, have deep roots. The third factor is the response that I have received from a large body of men when I have described to them my involvement in this research. Some have expressed their own sense of ill-ease with aspects of Baxter’s theology and method; others dismay at his pastoral theology due to a growing awareness of the theological system driving his method. Not one person has expressed to me anything but interest in this work. There is a growing consensus that Baxter’s views need closer examination before they become the paradigm for our own pastoral ministry, or perhaps even more germane, because they have become the paradigm for pastoral ministry in some places.

In spending hours with Baxter through his writings, I have come to a deep appreciation for his genius and ability. He understood the systematic nature of theology in both formulation and practice, and labored to produce a remarkably tight and consistent system. He seems to have read almost all of the religious writers of his own era, both British and Continental, as well as having a thorough knowledge of the Fathers, medieval theologians, Reformation and Post-reformation era writers, both protestant and papist. He was a gifted Latinist and was conversant with the currents of contemporary theological thought. His faith and practice were the result of long, hard thinking.

While we may recognize the brilliance of his mind, we must also remember the controversial nature of his views. When his first explicitly theological work, the Aphorisms of Justification,[1] was published in 1649, it stirred up a hornet’s nest of response and critique. For more than forty years, Baxter churned out book after book, never altering the substance of any position outlined in that first work.[2] Interestingly, none of Baxter’s theological writings (only his practical works) have been reprinted since his death. As we will see, this lacuna is in one sense unfortunate, and would not have been approved by Mr. Baxter himself. To the contrary, he viewed his practical works as the necessary extension of his theological works, the latter serving as the basis for the former.

Baxter’s critics were direct in their evaluations of his ideas. John Owen, in a preface to William Eyre’s Vindiciae Justificationis Gratuitae, said that there was “too great evidence of very welcome entertainment, and acceptance, given by many to an almost pure Socinian Justification, and Exposition of the Covenant of Grace.”[3] J.I. Packer calls this Owen’s “persistent insinuation”[4] concerning Baxter’s position. Perhaps more accessible is the appendix to Owen’s 1655 work Vindiciae Evangelicae, which is a reply to some animadversions offered by Baxter against Owen. In that appendix, Owen says, “he that shall deny the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, and maintain that our performance of new obedience is the matter of our justification before God, according to the tenor of the new covenant, and yet grant the satisfaction of Christ, and assign it a place (some or other) in the business or our justification, his doctrine is but almost Socinian, and yet, in my judgment, is altogether an error.”[5] Baxter dedicated his Aphorisms to two Westminster Divines, Anthony Burgess and Richard Vines. Neither was pleased. Burgess wrote privately and then publicly against Baxter in 1654,[6] and Vines expressed his objections by way of letters.[7] Hans Boersma asserts that “at least five others” sent private comments on the Aphorisms, among them a minister from a neighboring village, John Tombes.[8] When the published responses began to issue from the press, opposition engulfed Baxter. Not only Owen, but also Tombes, Thomas Blake, George Kendall, William Eyre, John Crandon, and Thomas Tully[9] (among others) wrote against him during his lifetime. After his death, further treatises came forth (by such men as Robert Traill, Isaac Chauncy, Benjamin Keach, and Thomas Edwards) against the doctrine sometimes known as “neonomianism” or “Baxterianism.”[10] In addition, it is not unusual to find pointed remarks directed against Baxter’s views in other works: for example, one might note Henry D’Anvers’ comments in A Second Reply in Defense of A Treatise of Baptism[11] or Joseph Caryl’s Preface to Crandon’s Mr. Baxters Aphorisms Exorized and Anthorized. Baxter lived in a whirlwind of opposition and criticism.

A paper of this length cannot provide a full-blown analysis of Baxter’s theology—the reader is urged to consult several existing works for such.[12] For present purposes, we will only be able to sketch out the contours of his theological views. First, we will examine his baptismal doctrine, then notice its extension into justification, and finally draw out some implications for his pastoral theology. To a large degree, Baxter will speak for himself.

Baptism

Richard Baxter viewed baptism as the door of entry into the covenant of grace. His 1675 work Catholick Theologie[13] is built on this principle. He begins by asking “the Wrathful, Contentious, zealous dogmatists” to consider a lengthy selection of Scripture verses, and then proceeds to summarize his doctrine in fourteen points, the first three of which are as follows:

1. I assert. The BAPTISMAL COVENANT expounded in the antient CREED is the summ and Symbol of Christianity, by which Believers were to be distinguished from unbelievers, and the outward Profession of it was mens Title to Church-communion, and the Heart-consent was the Title-condition of Pardon and Salvation, And to these ends it was made by Christ himself. Matth. 28.19,20. Mark 16.16.
2. All that were baptized did profess to Believe in God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and devoted themselves to him, with profession of Repentance of former sins, and renouncing the Lusts of the Flesh, the World and the Devil, professing to begin a new and holy life, in hope of everlasting glory.
3. This form of Baptismal Covenanting and Profession begun with Christianity (and called our Christening, or making us Christians) hath been propagated and delivered down to us to this day, by a full and certain tradition and testimony and less alterations than the holy Scriptures.[14]

The “antient creed” is, of course, the Apostle’s Creed. Baxter believed that it was given by Christ and preserved in the church as the most basic summary of Christianity, being better attested in form, and older than the Scriptures themselves.

This baptismal covenant may be in effect in two ways: it may apply in the case of a convert from another religion (i.e. a form of believer’s baptism) or in the case of infant baptism. In either circumstance, it reflects a conditional covenant in which man’s participation is essential. In Catholicke Theologie, Baxter describes at length the fundamental nature of baptism:

The New Covenant is Christ’s Law of Grace; his Instrument by which he giveth Title or Right to the Benefits promised, and conveyeth Right to the Fruits of his Sacrifice and Merits; and his Law by which he governeth the Church as a Saviour, in order to Recovery and Salvation.… 

The Baptismal-Covenant, is a Law imposed, and as imposing the Covenant-Duties, and as determining the conditions of Life and Death, according to which men must live and shall be judged; yea it is the most famous Law, which Conscience hath to do with; Though it be a Covenant as consented to, in the contract. That Sinners have terms of Life and Death, and offered Remedies against all their guilt and greatest Punishments, and Means prescribed, and Duties commanded in order to their recovery, when the Law of Innocency condemneth them; especially the obeying of the Ministry, and Word, and Holy Spirit of Christ, prescribing them his way of cure as their Physician, all this is a Law of Grace; even the Law of Liberty, and the Law of the Spirit of Life, which freeth us from the Law of Sin and Death. Christ’s Law consisteth of two parts:. .. 1. The Law of Nature (called by many moral) as commanding the love of God and its attendant Duties, not now to an innocent man, but to a condemned-recovering Sinner, as the health to which his Physician doth restore him. 2. And the remedying Law which is more proper to the Redeemer called the Law of Faith; which appointeth us the terms and means of our recovery: which is, 1. Supernatural as to the Revelation of the matter and reasons of it, and the foundation of all in Christ’s Work of Redemption and his Legislation: 2. But as to the obligation or efficiency of man’s duty, it is both natural and supernatural at once: that is, when it is presupposed that Christ hath done, suffered and offered to our acceptance, all that is asserted of him in the Gospel; 1. Nature obligeth us to believe it (upon evidence of credibility) and to accept it, and thankfully improve it: 2. Christ as the Fathers Administrator, and our King, hath positively commanded us the same.[15]

The act of baptism places obligations on the baptizand, so that he or she must obey the law of the gospel. Baptism is gracious in that it is divinely initiated, but also legal in that it imposes requirements on all baptized. This has tremendous implications for Baxter’s doctrine of justification, as we shall see.

When one wonders how these obligations are placed on infants, Baxter provides the answer:

I take it. .. for 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 than 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: For it is not another, but the same promise and Covenant which is made to the faithful and their seed: And all Gods promises to the many Generations of them, in the second Commandment and many other Texts, cannot mean any such little blessings as consist with a state of damnation and the possession of the Devil.. . . 

I know the grand difficulty is, that then this Infant-grace is lost in many that live to riper age. I have said so much of this in my Christian Directory that I will refer the considering reader there. .. .[16]

In another place he says:

For our believing consent to the Baptismal-Covenant putteth us into immediate Right to all the benefits of the Covenant which we are then capable of, but not to all that we shall be made further capable of hereafter; we are pardoned, and should be glorified, if we presently died: But as we have more Grace to receive, so we have more Duty to perform as a means, yea a condition, of obtaining it. 

This (over-lookt by many) is much to be considered, both as to the case of Infants baptized, and the Adult. Many wonder that the Children of godly Parents prove oft so bad, as if by the Baptismal-Covenant they had received nothing from God.. .. The continuance of Gods Grace hath a continued condition and means to be used on our part. The condition which the Covenant requireth to an Infants first Justification, is, [that he be the Child of a true Believer, by him dedicated to God]. And as the first Condition is to be found in the Parents (or Owner) so must the Condition of continued Grace as long as the Child continueth an Infant. And that is the continuance of the Parents Faith, and his faithful performance of his promise made to educate his Child in the way of God.. .. For in Baptism both Parties were obliged for the future, and not one only. And if when the Child cometh to the use of Reason, he wilfully reject and resist Gods Grace, and break his Covenant, he forfeiteth Gods further Grace. 

Though Gods Decree is that his Elect shall persevere, yet I conceive. .. that the Baptismal Covenant as such doth not absolutely promise or give right to so much Grace as shall certainly cause the baptized to persevere; that is, all that are rightfully baptized (even as coram Deo as well as coram Ecclesia) have not perseverance secured to them by baptism.[17]

The doctrine expressed here is clear. An infant’s baptism provides the initial blessings promised in salvation, but does not infallibly secure the end of these blessings, i.e. eternal salvation. It is necessary for the child to fulfill future obligations as he grows to maturity: “We were engaged in our Infant Baptismal Covenant when we came to Age, as a means to our reception of the benefits of the Covenant, proper to the Adult: therefore we must perform our Covenant, and use this means, if we will have the benefits.”[18] What is the means? “A publicke owning of their Baptismal Covenant in the face of the Congregation, and a solemn Promise to live a holy, obedient life: and this at full age,”[19] i.e., confirmation.

Baxter faced the difficulty of reconciling his doctrine with the experience of numerous “Christian” children, recognizing that many departed from the faith, giving no evidence of the pursuit of the law of holiness. His solution to the problem was the assertion that the Scriptures provided three ways in which a mature individual may be brought into full communicant church membership. The first is believer’s baptism in the case of the “unbaptized;” the second is “confirmation” for those baptized in infancy and giving evidence of continuation in grace; the third is “absolution” for those that “have proved Actual wicked ungodly persons” since their paedobaptism.[20] Baptism was good, but the solemn owning of covenant obligation required more, even when a child “never proved ungodly, nor violated that first covenant.”[21] This was to be evidenced in the ceremony of confirmation, which according to Baxter was owned by all of the Paedobaptist churches, and one half of the “Anabaptists.”[22] In this ceremony, the soon-to-be communicant believer publicly professed faith and the determination to fulfill his covenant obligations, then received the blessing of the church through a personal prayer of the minister.

At this point, it is important to segue to the doctrine of justification. Infant baptism began the process of salvation by engaging parents and child to covenant obligations; but this was not the sum of the process, it simply pointed the individual to the greater matter of justification.

Justification

The connection between the Baptismal Covenant and Justification is essential in Baxter’s system. Further on in Catholicke Theologie he states:

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, Son, and Holy Ghost, as our Reconciled Creator and Father, our Saviour and our Sanctifyer, 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.[23]

In baptism, the recipient is engaged to perform conditions, expressed in this citation initially as faith, and explicated further as practical faith or believing consent. Notice that Baxter says that this is “the faith by which we are justified.” We need to hear him at length, since his views are so different from those expressed in the Reformed Confessions.

We have stated that his initial book on the subject, Aphorisms of Justification, expressed in detail the foundational principles of his system, which were never altered in his lifetime. The book consists of eighty theses, most of which have lengthy explanations attached. I will present many of these theses (and some of Baxter’s “explication” on one of them) at this point and allow them to speak for themselves:

Thesis 14. (1) The Tenor of the new Covenant is this, That Christ having made sufficient satisfaction to the Law, Whosoever will repent and believe in him to the end, shall be justified through that Satisfaction from all that the Law did charge upon them, and be moreover advanced to far greater Priviledges and Glory then they fell from: But whosoever fulfilleth not these conditions, shall (2) have no more benefit from the blood of Christ, then what they here received and abused, but must answer the charge of the Law themselves; and for their neglect of Christ must also suffer a far greater condemnation. Or briefly, Whosoever believeth in Christ shall not perish, but have everlasting life; but he that believeth not shall not see life, but the Wrath of God abideth on him. 

Thesis 15. Though Christ hath sufficiently satisfied the Law, yet is it not his Will, or the Will of the Father, that any man should be justified or saved thereby, who hath not some ground in himself of personal and particular right and claim thereto; nor that any should be justified by the blood only as shed or offered, except it be also received and applyed; so that no man by the meer Satisfaction made, is freed from the Law or curse of the first violated Covenant absolutely, but conditionally only. 

Thesis 16. The obeying of a Law, and performing the conditions of a Covenant, or satisfying for disobedience, or non-performance, is our Righteousness, in reference to that Law and Covenant. 

Thesis 17. Therefore as there are two Covenants, with their distinct Conditions: so is there a twofold Righteousness, and both of them absolutely necessary to Salvation. 

Thesis 18. Our Legal Righteousnes, or righteousness of the first Covenant is not personal, or consisteth not in any qualifications of our own persons, or actions performed by us, (For we never fulfilled, nor personally satisfied the Law:) but it is wholly without us in Christ. And in this sence it is that the Apostle (and every Christian,) disclaimeth his own Righteousness, or his own Works, as being no true legal Righteousness. Phil. 3. 7, 8. 

Thesis 19. The Righteousness of the New Covenant, is the only Condition of our interest in, and enjoyment of the Righteousness of the old. Or thus: Those only shall have part in Christs satisfaction, and so in him be legally righteous, who do beleive, and obey the Gospel, and so are in themselves Evangelically Righteous. 

Thesis 20. Our Evangelicall Righteousness is not without [N.B. Outside or alien to] us in Christ, as our legal Righteousness is: but consisteth in our own actions of Faith and Gospel Obedience. Or thus: Though Christ performed the conditions of the Law, and satisfied for our non-performance; yet it is our selves that must perform the conditions of the Gospel. 

Thesis 21. Not that we can perform these Conditions without Grace: (for without Christ we can do nothing:) But that he enableth us to perform them our selves; and doth not himself repent, beleeve, love Christ, obey the Gospel for us, as he did satisfie the Law for us. 

Thesis 22. In this fore-explained sence it is, that men in Scripture are said to be personally righteous: And in this sence it is, that the Faith and duties of Beleevers are said to please God, viz. as they are related to the Covenant of Grace, and not as they are measured by the Covenant of Works. 

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. 

Thesis 24. This personal Gospel Righteousness is in its kind a perfect Righteousness; and so far we may admit the doctrine of personal Perfection. 

Thesis 26. (1) Neither can our performance of the conditions of the Gospel in the most proper and strict sence, be said to merit the reward: seeing there is nothing in the value of it, or any benefit that God receiveth by it, which may so entitle it meritorious; neither is there any proportion betwixt it and the reward. (2) But in a larger sence, as Promise is an Obligation, and the thing promised is called Debt; so the performers of the Condition are called Worthy, and their performance Merit. Though properly it is all of Grace, and not of Debt. 

Thesis 27. (1) As it was possible for Adam to have fulfilled the Law of Works by that power which he received by nature; (2) So is it possible for us to perform the Conditions of the new Covenant by the (3) Power which we receive from the Grace of Christ. 

Thesis 34. The Covenant of Grace is not properly said to be violated, or its conditions broken, except they be finally broken: For the violation consisteth in non-performance of the conditions, and if they are performed at last, they are truly performed, and if performed, then the Covenant is not so violated, as that the offendor should fall under the threatening thereof. 

Thesis 37. Justification is either 1. in Title and the Sence of the Law; 2. Or in Sentence of Judgment. The first may be called Constitutive; The second Declarative: The first Virtual, the second Actual. 

Thesis 38. Justification, in Title of Law, is a gracious Act of God, by the Promise or Grant of the new Covenant, acquitting the Offendor from the Accusation and Condemnation of the old Covenant, upon consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ, and accepted by the sinner. 

Thesis 39. Justification in Sentence of Judgment is [a gracious Act of God by Christ, according to the Gospel, by Sentence at his publique Bar, acquitting the sinner from the Accusation and Condemnation of the Law, pleaded against him by Satan] upon consideration of the Satisfaction made by Christ, accepted by the sinner, and pleaded for him. 

Thesis 40. When Scripture speaketh of Justification by Faith, it is to be understood primarily and directly of Justification in Law title, and at the bar of Gods publique Judgment; and but secondarily and consequentially of Justification at the bar of Gods secret judgment, or at the bar of Conscience, or of the World. 

Thesis 41. That saying of our Divines [That Justification is perfected at first, and admits of no degrees] must be understood thus, That each of those Acts which we call Justification, are in their own kind perfect at once; and that our Righteousness is perfect, and admits not of degrees. But yet as the former Acts, called Justification, do not fully, and in all respects, procure our freedom, so they may be said to be imperfect, and but degrees toward our full and perfect Justification at the last Judgment. 

Thesis 42. There are many such steps toward our final and full Justification; As 1. Gods eternal Love and Decree of justifying us. 2. Christs undertaking for satisfying and justifying. 3. His actual satisfying by paying the price. 4. His own Justification, as the publique Person, at his Resurrection. 5. That change which is made in our Relation upon our Regeneration, or receiving the vital seed of Grace, where, among others, that is contained, which is called the habit of Faith: this infants are capable of. 6. The change of our Relation upon our actual Faith. 7. The pacifying our own hearts by the evidence of Faith, and assurance thereupon, and witness of Conscience, and Testimony, and Seal of the Spirit. 8. The Angels judging us righteous, and rejoycing therein. 9. Our Justification before Men. 10. And our final Justification at the great Judgment. But it is only the sixth and tenth of these which is directly and properly the Justification by Faith, as is before exprest. 

Thesis 43. The Justification which we have in Christs own Justification is but conditional as to the particular offendors, and none can lay claim to it, till he have performed the conditions; nor shall any be personally justified till then: Even the elect remain personally unjust and unjustified, for all their conditional Justification in Christ, till they do beleeve. 

Thesis 44. Men that are but thus conditionally pardoned and justified, may be unpardoned and unjustified again for their non-performance of the conditions, and all the debt so forgiven be required at their hands; and all this without any change in God, or in his Laws. 

Thesis 45. Yea, in case the justified by Faith should cease beleeving, the Scripture would pronounce them unjust again, and yet without any change in God, or Scripture but only in themselves. Because their Justification doth continue conditions as long as they live here; the Scripture doth justifie no man by name, but all beleevers as such; therefore if they should cease. to be beleevers, they would cease to be justified. 

Thesis 49. It being the Laws Accusation and Condemnation only, & not the Gospels, which we are justified against; therefore the Righteousness which must be pleaded for our Justification directly must be a legal Righteousness, which is only Christs Satisfaction. 

Thesis 50. Our Faith therefore cannot be the least part of that Righteousness so to be pleaded, it being not the Righteousness of that Covenant which doth accuse us; so that though we are justified by Faith, yet is it not any of the Righteousness to be pleaded against the accuser. 

Thesis 51. Yet if Satan, or any other, should falsly accuse us of not performing the conditions of the new Covenant, and so having no part in Christs Satisfaction, here we must be justified only by our Faith, or personal Gospel-Righteousness, and not by any thing that Christ hath done or suffered: For in all false accusations we must defend our innocency, and plead not guilty. 

Thesis 59. Justification is not a momentaneous Act, begun and ended immediately upon our Believing: but a continued Act; which though it be in its kind compleate from the first, yet is it still in doing, till the finall Justification at the Judgement day. 

Thesis 60. The bare Act of beleeving is not the onely Condition of the New Covenant: but severall other duties also are parts of that Condition. 

Thesis 61. Therefore though the non-performance of any one of these be threatned with certain death; yet there must be a Concurrence of them all, to make up the Conditions which have the promise of life. 

Thesis 62. Yet Faith may be called the onely Condition of the new Covenant; 1. Because it is the principal Condition, and the other but the less principal: And so as a whole Country hath oft its name from the chief City; so may the Conditions of this Covenant from Faith: 2. Because all the rest are reducible to it; either being presupposed, as necessary Antecedents or means; or contained in it as its parts, properties, or modifications; or else implied as its immediate product, or necessary subservient means or consequents. 

Thesis 63. As it is Gods excellent method in giving the Moral Law, first to require the acknowledgment of his soveraign authority, and to bring men to take him only for their God, (which is therefore called the first and great Commandment,) and then to prescribe the particular subsequent duties; so is it the excellent method of Christ in the Gospel, first to establish with men his Office and Authority, and require an acknowledgment of them, and consent and subjection to them; and then to prescribe to them their particular duties in subordination. 

Thesis 64. Faith therefore is the summary and chief of the conditions of the Gospel, and not formally and strictly the whole: But as Love is the fulfilling of the Law, so Faith is the fulfilling of: the new Law; or as taking the Lord for our only God, is the sum of the Decalogue, implying or inferring all the rest, and so is the great Commandment; so taking Christ for our only Redeemer and Lord, is the sum of the conditions of the new Covenant, including, implying or inferring all other parts of its conditions, and so is the great Command of the Gospel. 

Thesis 65. Scripture doth not take the word [Faith] as strictly as a Philosopher would doe, for any one single Act of the soul; nor yet for various Acts of one onely Faculty: But for a compleat entire Motion of the whole Soule, to Christ its Object. 

Thesis 66. Neither is Christ, in respect of any one part or work of his Office alone, the Object of Justifying Faith, as such: But Christ in his entire office considered, is this Object: viz. as he is Redeemer, Lord and Saviour. 

Thesis 67. Much lesse are any Promises or benefits of Christ, the proper Object of justifying Faith, as many Divines do mistakingly conceive. 

Thesis 68. Nor is Christs person considered as such, or for it self, the object of this Faith: But the person of Christ as cloathed with his Office and Authority is this Object. 

Thesis 72. As the Accepting of Christ for Lord, (which is the hearts subjection) is as Essential a part of Justifying Faith, as the Accepting of him for our Saviour: So consequently, sincere obedience, (which is the effect of the former,) hath as much to doe in justifying us before God, as Affiance, (which is the fruit of the later.) 

Thesis 73. From what hath been said, it appeareth in what sence Faith only justifieth; and in what sence Works also justifie: viz. 1. Faith only justifieth as it implieth and includeth all other parts of the condition of the new Covenant: and is so put in opposition to the Works of the Law, or the personal Righteousness of the old Covenant. 2. Faith only justifieth as the great principal master duty of the Gospel, or chief part of its Condition, to which all the rest are some way reducible. 3. Faith onely doth not justifie in opposition to the Works of the Gospel; but those Works do also justifie, as the secondary, less principal parts of the condition of the Covenant. 

Thesis 74. So that they both justifie in the same kinde of causality, viz. as Causae sine quibus-non, or mediate and improper Causes; or as Dr Twisse)[24] Causae dispositivae: but with this difference: Faith as the principal part; Obedience as the less principal. The like may be said of Love, which at least is a secondary part of the Condition: and of others in the same station. 

Explication. I Know this is the doctrine that will have the loudest outcries raised against it: and will make some cry out, Heresie, Popery, Socinianism! and what not? For my own part the Searcher of hearts knoweth, that not singularity, affectation of novelty, nor any good will to Popery, provoketh me to entertain it; But that I have earnestly sought the Lords direction upon my knees, before I durst adventure on it: And that I resisted the light of this Conclusion as long as I was able. But a man cannot force his own understanding, if the evidence of truth force it not; though he may force his pen, or tongue, to silence or dissembling. That which I shall do further, is, to give you some proofs of what I say, and to answer some Objections. Though, if the foregoing grounds do stand, there needs no more proof of these assertions. If Faith justifie as it is the fulfilling of the Condition of the new Covenant, and Obedience be also part of that Condition, then obedience must justifie in the same way as Faith: But both parts of the Antecedent are before proved. 

Thesis 77. That we are justified by sincere obedience to Christ, as the secondary part of the Condition of our Justification; is evident also from these following Scriptures. Matth. 12. 37. Mar. 11. 25. 26. Luk. 6. 37. Mat 6. 12. 14. 15, 1 Joh. 1. 9. Act. 8. 22. Act. 3. 19. & 22. 16. 1 Pet. 4. 18. Rom. 6. 16. 1 Pet. 1. 2. 22. 

Thesis 78. Our full Justification, and our everlasting Salvation have the same Conditions on our part. But sincere Obedience is without all doubt, a Condition of our Salvation: therefore also of our Justification. 

Thesis 80. To conclude: It is most clear in the Scripture, 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 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 judg by a Law: and will then give the Reason of his Publique Sentence from mens keeping or breaking the Conditions of his 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 shew 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.

These theses are startling indeed, but they need little comment. Baxter himself anticipated the type of response he would receive, and he was correct. In his system, the engagements of baptism should result in a life of faithful obedience to God in Christ, so that justification and sanctification are conflated into one, faith is defined in terms of righteous acts, and the believer is taught that he himself has an important, albeit subsidiary, part to play in his own justification. Holiness is not simply the grateful response of a forgiven sinner, it is the necessary act of the baptized Christian—his works make a significant contribution to justification. It is almost superfluous to state that this is not the doctrine of the Reformers or the Reformed Confessions.

Twenty-six years later, Baxter said the same thing: “All the Righteousness which formally justifieth us, is our own or on our selves where it justifyeth us.”[25] But he did not stop here. He increased the stakes by stating, “Though all our past sins are pardoned at our first Faith or Conversion (or as the Ancients speak in Baptism) yet it is most certain that Pardon or Justification is not perfect at first, no nor this side death: And the saying of many that Justification is perfect at first, and Sanctification only by degrees, is a palpable error.”[26] Baxter implies that justification must be perfected in degrees. The initial act of justification commences the process, but it is only complete at the last day when the believer’s faithful obedience is revealed.

Knowing that the Independents in the publication of their Declaration of Faith had strengthened the language of justification[27] used in chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession, Baxter criticized their position. After citing their confessional statement at length and using language in the third person, he says, “upon the publication of this it was variously spoken of: some thought that it gave the Papists so great a scandal, and advantage to reproach the Protestants as denying all inherent Righteousness, that it was necessary that we should declaim it.”[28] In the final part of his Catholicke Theologie, some “Protestants” come under harsh criticism for the doctrinal offenses they give to “Papists,” and the words used are telling. After describing the differences between Protestants and Papists, which he perceived to be of consequence (Papal power, Government, Worship, Purgatory, Indulgences, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation etc.), he spoke of other topics “made by many the matter of greater difference than there is cause” such as:

predestination, providence, the cause of sin, mans power, free-will, grace, certainty of salvation, and I might have added, Justification and merit as held by their church and most of the Schoolmen: not that here is no difference indeed; but that long study hath made me certain that it is more in words than is commonly conceived: and this truth is fit to be spoken though the mistaken be offended by it.[29]

This is a remarkable condemnation of the judgment of nearly all Reformation and Post-reformation theologians! Baxter sweeps away the differences on some of the most foundational doctrines of the era, stating that most of the differences are merely verbal. Probably, this is wishful thinking—a tacit recognition that his views differed little from Rome, desiring, by this method, to make them seem more orthodox than they were. It is no wonder that his doctrines caused a firestorm of opposition.

What are the doctrinal sins of Protestants? A summary list of twenty-one topics is provided, among which numbers 12–14 state: “12. Those that assert Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness in that sense which I have proved to subvert the Gospel. 13. And those that deny Faith it self to be imputed for righteousness. 14. And those that deny that there is any personal Evangelical Righteousness in our selves that is any way necessary to our Justification.”[30] These sins were so serious that:

Such men have corrupted the Gospel of Christ, by bringing in many doctrinal errors, and opening a door to the heretical to bring in more. Almost all the Libertine Antinomian errors, have come in by an injudicious opposition to Popery, as if they were the Vindication of Election, Free Grace, Christs Righteousness, Justification by Faith, Perseverance, against Works and Merits: And it is not to be denyed, that the said Libertine Doctrines do more contradict the Doctrine of the Gospel, even Christianity it self, than the Doctrine of the Papists about the same subjects do. I know this to be true, who ever is offended at it.[31]

This is followed first by a list of Romanist authors who are said to be “not near so erroneous about Justification, Grace, Faith and good works” as a series of English authors,[32] and then by this remarkable statement:

Your injudicious opposition greatly hardeneth the Papists, and hindereth their conviction: When they find some errours in your writings, (as that all are bound to believe that they are elected and Justified, that this is the sense of the Article, I believe the forgiveness of sin, that this is fides divina, that we are Reputed of God to have fulfilled all the Law of Innocency habitually and actually in and by Christ, etc.) and then when they read that such men lay the great stress of the Reformation upon these, as the very cause of our rejecting Rome, and the articuli stantis aut cadentis Ecclesia, what can more harden them to a confidence that we are hereticks and that they are in the right?[33]

While it seems almost unnecessary to say any more, Benjamin Keach provides a helpful summary:

I suppose Mr. Williams, and Mr. Baxter were of the same Faith and Judgment. If you will know what Terms and Condition of the Covenant of Grace are, which must be performed by us that we may be justified, both these Men tell you, (though the latter more fully) ‘tis 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 and Holiness, they make to be as absolute Conditions 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.[34]

We are now prepared for some brief remarks about pastoral theology.

Pastoral Theology

It must be recognized that Baxter the theologian was first and foremost Baxter the pastor, and that his theological conclusions were the foundation on which his pastoral theology was built. When, for example, he published his A Christian Directory, almost the first words in the book are these: “As Amesius’s ‘Cases of Conscience” are to his ‘Medulla,’ the second and practical part of theology, so is this to a ‘Methodius Theologiae’ which I have not yet published.” A few paragraphs later, he indicates that the “great work of this treatise” is for “the reducing of theoretical knowledge into serious Christian practice.”[35] What could be clearer? In the same way that William Ames completed his Marrow of Divinity with a practical work on Cases of Conscience, so Baxter considered his Directory as the outworking of his Theological Method. He envisioned no bifurcation between faith and life; rather he worked out an intimate relationship between the two. Doctrine serves as the basis—it sets the parameters and articulates the theoretical relationships; life takes those foundational principles and acts upon them. The relationship never ends: faith is fulfilled in practice; duty expresses doctrine. Baxter the pastor understood that the content of faith is never merely theoretical; Christianity is not a purely notional religion. To the contrary, every doctrine leads to obedience; how a Christian lives will be based on, governed by, and consistent with the truth he believes.

For Baxter, pastoral theology is the practice of doctrinal theology, and his practical books were intended to put flesh and bones on the skeleton of doctrine. It is a mistake to think that the one may be separated from the other. This is why the present study is important. If Baxter’s doctrinal works are heterodox or worse, do his practical works escape without taint?

It has been asserted that Baxter’s doctrinal views must not and cannot be divorced from his practical views; the lengthy citations above demonstrate this point. Baxter was serious about encouraging holiness in his people, so much so that he forced the Protestant doctrine of justification into a heretical mold, believing that if it were to remain as received, it would only promote antinomianism and licentiousness. Unable to maintain the well established distinction between justification and sanctification, Baxter developed a system in which the gospel became a new and milder law, a law that must nevertheless be obeyed. For him, the freedom of grace was compromised by a doctrine intent on gaining heaven by works, and this perspective permeates Baxter’s pastoral method.

When a minister concludes that the only way that his people will be saved is if they participate in their justification, he will preach to them this necessity. Since almost all of them would have been engaged by their parents into covenant relations with God via infant baptism, it was only proper for him to seek to call them to covenant faithfulness, i.e. to complete the engagements brought upon them by their parents. He did not simply preach to them the forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ, but developed a pastoral theology consonant with his doctrinal theology, in which his people were urged to work their way to heaven— or at least to participate in the gaining of heaven. From Baxter’s perspective, this was the only appropriate course for him to take, as his own justification would be bound up in the successful performance of his own covenantal obligations. Sadly, the gospel was severely compromised by this method.

There can be no mistake about this because Baxter’s doctrinal writings are replete with these kinds of statements. In An Appeal to the Light, he said:

As Christ is our King, and hath freely given his benefits, by the way and terms of a Law of Grace (the Baptismal Covenant) so that Covenant or Law must be performed by us through his grace: and we must be judged by that Law: And we must have a Righteousness required by that Law in subordination to Christ’s Meritorious Righteousness: And by that personal Righteousness, we must be justified against the contrary charge: that is, we must be justified by our faith against the charge of Impenitency; and by our Love, Holiness, Obedience and Sincerity, against the charge of final unholiness, rebellion, and being hypocrites: And the day of Judgment will not be to try Christ and his Righteousness, but (to honour it) and try us and ours: And all men shall be judged according to their own works: And to be judged, is to be justified or condemned: And salvation or damnation will be adjudged us as we are found to have been personally righteous or unrighteous, in respect to the terms of the Law of Grace.[36]

In his A Christian Directory, he wrote, “I have been necessitated to leave out much (about conversion, mortification, self-denial, self-acquaintance, faith, justification, judgment, glory, etc.) because I had written of them all before.”[37] His seventeenth-century readers would have had ready access to his views on these matters, and would have understood the intimate relationship envisioned by their author. But at the distance of three centuries, with the unavailability of his doctrinal works, and the loud chorus offering praise for his practical writings, this symbiosis of theology and practice is virtually unknown. This study is an attempt to begin to rectify the situation.

Conclusion

What should our conclusion be? It is simply this: Baxter’s theology is at best heterodox and at worst heretical; his pastoral theology must therefore be treated with the greatest of caution. This is not to make a blanket condemnation of his practical works. It is simply to say that the modern reader must come to them with the awareness that they are ineluctably tainted by the doctrinal foundation on which they are built. To apply them to pastoral methodology today without due caution is irresponsible. While this may run counter to the expressed opinions of many authors, it is nonetheless an inevitable deduction. Baxter himself recognized the integrative nature of theology—it was his system that drove his method. If we neglect this reality, we run the risk of falling into serious error. We cannot proclaim the free grace of God to our people on the Lord’s Day, and then undermine it by a subtle insistence on works in pastoral dealings. The dividing wall between sanctification and justification must be maintained, or we fall prey to the gravest danger imaginable—the loss of the Gospel itself. This is not a simplistic “thin end of the wedge” type of argument—it is sober reality.

Baxter’s system was seriously mistaken. There were, undoubtedly, some fanatics who abused the doctrine of justification by free grace, proclaiming an essentially antinomian dogma. But this was not the case with the received Protestant teaching, and could not have been the case with any of the orthodox formulations. We began with Benjamin Keach; it seems appropriate to let him have the final word:

’tis a hard Case that any of those who maintain the Old Doctrine of Justification, should be branded with the black Name of Antinomians. As for my part, if Dr. Crisp be not misrepresented by his Opposers, I am not of his Opinion in several respects; but I had 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,. .. the Doctrine we preach does not open a Door to the least Licentiousness (as ‘tis unjustly said to do by some, who are either wilfully or ignorantly blind.) No, God forbid. Nothing can promote Holiness, and Gospel-sanctification like unto it, only it teaches us to act from high, sublime, and right Evangelical Principles: It shews the only way to attain to Gospel-Purity, flows from our Union with Christ; and that no Man can arrive to any degree of true holiness, or expect to meet with any Success therein, without a Principle of Spiritual Life, or saving Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The nature of Men must first be changed, and that Enmity that is in their Hearts against God, be removed, before they can be holy: The Tree must first be made good, or the Fruits will be evil. The Image of God must be formed in our Souls, which puts the Creature into an actual bent and propensity of his Heart to the Practice of Holiness. If a Man hates not sin, be not out of Love with Sin, how should he be in love with God and Holiness? Now because we say Sanctification is not necessary, as antecedent to Justification, but is the Fruit or Product of Union with Christ; though we deny not but the Habits of Holiness are infused at that same Instant that Faith is wrought in the Soul, Must we be look’d upon as Promoters of a Licentious Doctrine? Must we make our own Performances, or Obedience, a Condition of Justification, or be laid under Infamy and Reproach? ‘Tis by Faith only, that we come to have actual Enjoyment and Possession of Christ himself, and of Remission of Sin; and not only so, but of eternal Life; and so of Holiness also, and no other ways. The good Lord help you to a right Understanding of these things, and make you all a holy people, to the Praise of his Glory, and Honour of your Sacred Profession.[38]

Notes

1. Richard Baxter, Aphorisms of Justification, with their Explication annexed (London: Francis Tyton, 1649).
2. J.I. Packer, The Redemption and Restoration of Man in the Thought of Richard Baxter (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2003), 417.
3. William Eyre, Vindiciae Justificationis Gratuitae (London: R.I., 1654), unnumbered preface page, emphasis in original. I have retained archaic orthography, punctuation, and emphases (i.e. the use of italics, upper case letters, etc.) in citations from primary source documents. Baxter (or his printers) seems to have been especially bad with the possessive apostrophe.
4. Packer, Redemption, 398.
5. John Owen, The Works of John Owen (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 12:597. The appendix runs from page 591 to page 616.
6. Anthony Burgess, The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated from the Errours of many, and more especially Papists and Socinians (London: Thomas Underhill, 1654).
7. Hans Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn: Richard Baxter’s Doctrine of Justification in its Seventeenth Century Context of Controversy (Zoetermeer: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1993), 33–36.
8. Ibid., 36-37.
9. Thomas Blake, The Covenant Sealed (London: Abel Roper, 1655); George Kendall, Θεοκρατια Or, A Vindication of the Doctrine Commonly Received in the Reformed Churches Concerning Gods Intentions of Special Grace and Favor to his Elect in the Death of Christ (London: Thomas Ratcliffe, 1653); Sancti Sanciti. Or, The Common Doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints (London: Thomas Ratcliffe, 1654); John Crandon, Mr. Baxters Aphorisms Exorized and Anthorized (London: 1654); Thomas Tully, Justificatio Paulina sine operibus ex mente ecclesiae anglicanae (Oxford: Henry Hall, 1674); A Letter to Mr. Richard Baxter Occasioned by several injurious Reflexions of his upon a treatise entituled Justificatio Paulina (Oxford: Henry Hall, 1675).
10. Robert Traill, A Vindication of the Protestant Doctrine concerning Justification, and of its Preachers and Professors, from the unjust charge of Antinomianism in The Works of the Late Reverend Robert Traill, AM. (reprint ed., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1975), 1:252–296; Isaac Chauncy, Neonomianism Unmasked: or, The Ancient Gospel Pleaded against the other called a New Law or a New Gospel (London: J. Harris, 1692); Alexipharmicon: or a Fresh Antidote against Neonomian Bane and Poyson to the Protestant Religion (London: W. Marshall, 1700); Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification, or Justification without Works (London: D.N. 1692); A Medium Betwixt Two Extremes (London: Andrew Bell, 1698); Thomas Edwards, The Paraselene Dismantled of her Cloud, or, Baxterianism Barefaced (London: William Marshall, 1699). Edwards is not to be confused with the earlier Presbyterian Thomas Edwards nicknamed Gangraena after his famous books of the same title. W. T. Whitley suggests that the latter Edwards was a Baptist. See W. T. Whitley, A Baptist Bibliography, (reprint ed., New York: Georg Olms, 1984), 216.
11. Henry D’Anvers, A Second Reply in Defense of A Treatise of Baptism (London: Francis Smith, 1675), 223. D’Anvers cites a variety of authors, including Tully and Owen, in order to demonstrate the similarity of Baxter’s doctrine of justification with “papist” views.
12. See Packer, Redemption, Boersma, A Hot Pepper Corn, and C. F. Allison, The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter (London: SPCK, 1966). In my estimation, Packer whitewashes Baxter’s theology. See my review of his book elsewhere in this issue of RBTR. Even this paper is somewhat artificial in isolating baptism and justification from Baxter’s larger system. A full treatment would address his views of predestination, the atonement and its extent, imputation, and man’s fall. It might also explore Baxter’s views of the necessity of salvation by the gospel—he argued, for example, for “the necessity of Faith in Christ, where the Gospel is known” in An End of Doctrinal Controversies Which have Lately Troubled the Churches by Reconciling Explication, without much Disputing (London: John Salusbury, 1691), 212. In Catholicke Theologie [Richard Baxter, Richard Baxter’s Catholick Theologie: Plain, Pure, Peaceable: For Pacification of the Dogmatick Word-Warriours (London: Robert White, 1675)] he says, “those therefore that teach the Church, that it is a certain truth, that no one in the world (Infant or Aged) is saved from Hell fire, but Christians only, and that this is not only certain to such great understandings as their own, but must be so to all Christians, do but discover that they over-value their own understandings, and that siding hath contracted their thoughts and charity into a sinful narrowness, and that the Opinions of men, counted Orthodox, prevaileth more with them than the evidence of truth, and I think that they are to be numbred with those that by over-doing, do dangerously undermine the Christian Faith.” II.49. Sect.5.88. The pagination of Catholicke Theologie is difficult and confusing.
13. The title is very important and purposeful. Arguing that Christian Theology should not exceed the statements of the Apostle’s Creed, Baxter sought for a system of theology that could unite the divided branches of Christendom. Ironically, the work is a folio of some 700 pages.
14. Ibid., unnumbered pages 5–6.
15. Ibid., I.42.Sect. IV.60.
16. Richard Baxter, More Proofs of Infants Church-membership and Consequently their Right to Baptism (London: N. Simmons, 1675), 206–07.
17. Baxter, Catholicke Theologie, II.72–73. Sect.IX.172–74. The brackets are in the original text.
18. Richard Baxter, Confirmation and Restauration, the Necessary Means of Reformation and Reconciliation (London: A.M., 1658), 17.
19. Ibid., 220.
20. Ibid., 91-93.
21. Ibid., 91.
22. Ibid., unnumbered page 5 of “To the Reader.” The half of the “Anabaptists” who did not practice confirmation (or its equivalent) was the Particular Baptists. Baxter overstates the case with regard to Paedobaptists.
23. Baxter, Catholicke Theologie, II.55. Sect.VI.106.
24. The initial parenthesis is missing in the original.
25. Baxter, Catholicke Theologie, II. 74. Sect. XI.181.
26. Ibid., II.85. Sect XIII.210. See his attempt to re-interpret this view at Thesis 41 above. The same theme occurs elsewhere in Baxter. In How Far Holinesse is the Design of Christianity (London: Nevill Simmons, 1671), 15, he says, “It is certain that Justification and Sanctification go on hand in hand together. .. and that it is a notorious errour of such as say that Justification is perfect as soon as it begins.”
27. The language was adopted verbatim by the Particular Baptists in the Second London Confession of Faith. See A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England (London: D.L., 1659), 9; A Confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians (baptized upon Profession of their faith) in London and the Country (N.P.: Printed in the Year, 1677) 40. Baxter’s criticism is thus also directed at the Reformed Baptist position.
28. Richard Baxter, Of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness to Believers (London: Nevill Simons, 1675), 26–27. A similar criticism may be found in Catholicke Theologie, IV.254 (no section numbers).
29. Baxter, Catholicke Theologie, IV.283. The same theme is addressed in An Appeal to the Light, or Richard Baxter’s Account of Four accused Passages of a Sermon on Eph. 1.3. (London: Nevil Simmons, 1674), 4–5.
30. Ibid., IV.288. We have not mentioned Baxter’s faulty doctrine of imputation.
31. Ibid. IV. 289.
32. The Romanists are Aquinas, Scotus, Gabriel, Bellarmine (!), Pererius, Tolet, Vasquez, Suarez and Molina; the English authors are Richardson, Randal, Sympson, Towne, Crispe and Saltmarsh. Among them Samuel Richardson was an early Particular Baptist who adopted strange views and distanced himself from his Baptist friends; Tobias Crisp was a reputed antinomian (Keach says that he “was abused” at the hands of his enemies and his friends—see Keach Medium, 31); John Saltmarsh was a curious mid-century seeker/antinomian. None of them were in the mainstream of English Reformed thought—hardly convincing targets for criticism.
33. Ibid., IV.290. The “Article” is from the Apostle’s Creed; the Latin phrase may be translated “the article of a standing or falling church.” It was the great appellation given to the doctrine of justification by faith alone by Luther. Baxter here seeks to turn the Reformation on its head—as if the gospel itself were not at stake in that era. Was the Reformation really about minor matters?
34. Keach, Marrow, 14. Mr. Williams is Daniel Williams, the most prominent leader of the Baxterian movement after Richard Baxter’s death.
35. Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory (reprint ed., Ligonier, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1990), 3. The Christian Directory was published in 1673; Methodius Theologiae was published in 1681. Written in Latin, he considered it his most complete statement of systematic theological expression. A perusal of the “Advertisement” prefixed to A Christian Directory will hint at the controversies swirling around Baxter.
36. Baxter, An Appeal to the Light, 3.
37. Baxter, Christian Directory, 4.
38. Keach, Marrow, sig. A2.