(Continued from Vol. xlii. p. 449.)
III. BAXTERIANISM.
BEFORE dealing with Baxter’s views of the extent of the atonement, some reference must be made to the views held by Davenant and Ussher. Both were eminent divines. Davenant was one of the five English deputies at the Synod of Dort. In his “Dissertation on the Death of Christ” he advances certain propositions, in the second of which he says: “The death of Christ is the universal cause of the salvation of mankind; and Christ Himself is acknowledged to have died for all men sufficiently, not by reason of the mere sufficiency or of the intrinsic value, according to which the death of God is a price more than sufficient for redeeming a thousand worlds, but by reason of the evangelical covenant confirmed with the whole human race through the merit of his death, and of the divine ordination depending upon it.” In his third proposition he says: “The death or passion of Christ, as the universal cause of the salvation of mankind, hath, by the act of its oblation, so far rendered God the Father pacified and reconciled to the human race.” Archbishop Ussher, who had a principal hand in drawing up the Irish Articles of 1615, and one of the great theologians of the seventeenth century, in answer to the request of a friend gave expression to his views concerning the extent of the Atonement. Ussher’s views were practically those of Davenant. In the Westminster Assembly there were a number of members who were supporters of Davenant on the Atonement; among these was Edmund Calamy, who avowed in one of the debates that he maintained in the same sense that the English divines at the Synod of Dort, “that Christ by his death did pay a price for all; for the reprobate in case they do believe; that all men should be salvabiles non obstante lapsu Adami . . . ; that Jesus did not only die sufficiently for all, but God did intend, in giving of Christ, and Christ in giving Himself did intend, to put all men in a state of salvation in case they do believe” (Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, p. 152). The subject caused considerable debate in the Assembly; Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie took a prominent part in opposing Calamy’s view. Finally it was agreed: “Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ; are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved, but the elect only.” —(Confession of Faith, chap. iii. sec. vi.)
*Owing to pressure on our space, the continuation of these articles were held over.—Editor.
“The Judgment of the late Archbishop of Armagh, etc., on the Extent of Christ’s Death.”
Dr. Mitchell, in his introduction to the “Minutes of the Westminster Assembly” (p. lvi.), remarks: “Though at first sight it may not seem easy to reconcile the opinions of these divines with the language of the sixth section of this chapter [iii.] of the Confession, it would be rash for me to say it is impossible.” This difficulty of Dr. Mitchell’s probably arose from an interpretation put upon certain words in the section which has been dealt with by Dr. Cunningham. Does the word “redeemed” describe only the purchase or procurement (impetratio is the word usually used by the theologians), or does it comprehend the application with absolute intention for the elect, with conditional intention application as well? In Dr. Cunningham’s opinion it seems quite clear that it is descriptive of the purchase of pardon and reconciliation, because there is an enumeration of all the leading steps in the great process of originating in God’s eternal election of some men and terminating in their complete salvation (Historical Theology, ii. 327.)
Minister of St. Mary’s, Aldermanburg, London.
The question has also been raised, as Dr. Cunningham points out, as to whether the phrase “the elect only” on the Confessional statement (“Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified and saved but the elect only”) applies to each of the predicates (redeemed, called, justified, etc.), singly and separately, or only to the whole of them taken collectively; i.e., whether it is intended here to assert that not any one of these things, such as “redeemed,” can be predicated of any but the elect only that they are redeemed by Christ, taken together, cannot be predicated of any others. The latter declaration would make the declaration a mere truism and would really give no deliverance upon anything. The Confessional statement, therefore, must be taken as meaning that it is not true of anything but the elect only that they are redeemed by Christ, any more than it is true that any others are called, justified or saved (Hist. Theology, ii. 328.)
It may be pointed out here that the word “redemption,” as used in the Westminster period, referred to the procurement of salvation and did not include its application. It is in this sense Baxter uses the word in the title of his book, “Universal Redemption of Mankind by the Lord Jesus Christ.“
Whatever efforts may have been made to give an interpretation to chapter iii. sec. vi. of the Confession favourable to the views held by the followers of Davenant and Ussher, there can be no doubt that the teaching of chapter viii. sec. 8 leaves no loophole for this teaching—”To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption He doth certainly and effectually communicate the same.” This statement, as Dr. Cunningham truly says, contains and was intended to contain the true status questionis in the controversy about the extent of the Atonement (Ibid., ii. 329). When the Larger Catechism was being drawn up, the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly (p. 369) indicate that the Davenant school of divines in the Assembly made another attempt to get their views accepted. A committee brought up for discussion the following questions and answers: Question—Do all men equally partake of the benefits of Christ? Answer—Although from Christ some common favours redound to all mankind, and some special privileges to the visible Church, yet none partake of the principal benefits of His mediation, but only such as are members of the Church invisible. Q.—What common favours redound from Christ to all mankind? A.—Besides much forbearance and many supplies for this life, which all mankind receive from Christ, the Lord of all, they by Him are made capable of having salvation tendered to them by the gospel, and are under such dispensations of Providence and operations of the Spirit as lead to repentance.” The final form of the questions and answers on the above subject are set forth as follows in “Questions and Answers,” 61 and 63, of the Larger Catechism: Q. 61—Are all saved who hear the gospel and live in the Church?” A.—All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible Church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the Church invisible.” Q. 63—What are the special privileges of the visible Church: A.—The visible Church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying that whosoever believes in Him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come to Him.”
In his Confession, Baxter, while expressing his admiration for the Westminster Divines and their work, will only accept chaps. iii. sec. vi. and viii. if the redemption referred to in these sections is “not of all redemption, and particularly not of the mere bearing the punishment of man’s sins, and satisfying God’s justice, but of that special redemption proper to the elect, which was accompanied with an intention of actual application of the saving benefits in time. If I may not be allowed this interpretation, I must herein dissent. . . . I hope it was never the mind of that Reverend Assembly to have shut out such men as Bishop Ussher, Davenant, Hall, Dr. Preston, Dr. Staughton, Mr. Wm. Fenner Dr. Ward, and many more excellent English divines as ever this Church enjoyed, who were for general redemption.” Baxter’s position on the extent of the Atonement is thus stated by an admirer: “That the number of the finally saved, who will be at the right hand of Christ in the Last Day, is foreknown, and, therefore, fixed, is indisputable; and that Christ, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, and for the sins not of the elect only, but, also, for the sins of the whole world, and that the call to accept His salvation is sincerely addressed to all men, are equally indisputable” (Works of the Puritan Divines: Baxter, p. liii.)
His controversy with Dr. Owen, the prince of the Puritan theologians, began in connection with Dr. Owen’s great work, “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” (Works, vol. x). In his “Aphorisms on Justification,” Baxter took exception to, among other things, Dr. Owen’s teaching on a definite Atonement. Owen answered him in what may be termed an appendix to his “The Death of Death” in his work of “The Death of Christ.” It is remarkable that while Baxter joins the issue with Owen for his doctrine of a definite Atonement, he declares: “In the article of the extent of redemption, wherein I am most suspected and accused, I do subscribe to the Synod of Dort, without any exception, limitation, or exposition of any word as doubtful and obscure.” This, to say the least of it, seems strange. In an appendix (“The Death of Christ and of Justification”) to his “Vindiciae Evangelicae,” Dr. Owen returns to Baxter’s criticisms in his “Confession of Faith” (1655). Baxter’s final reply was appended to a work which he published against Blacke entitled, “Certain Disputations of Right to the Sacraments and the True Nature of Visible Christianity 1656.” While Baxter’s views on the extent of the Atonement are to be condemned, it is only fair to say, as Dr. Smeaton has pointed out (The Apostles Doctrine of The Atonement, p. 542) that he was not an Amyraldian.
The controversy called forth a great number of books and pamphlets which are now forgotten.