David Carnes

Pastor at Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (OPC). MDiv, RTS Orlando. B.A. in Biblical Studies, Reformation Bible College.

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

@brothernelson

[Scott R. Swain @scottrswain]

Couple these two Qs with the Sum of Saving Knowledge and you have a threefold relationship of human beings to the single the covenant of grace

The CoG is:

1) Offered to all sinners

2) Externally communicated to all the baptized

3) Internally communicated to the elect by faith

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

@PastorAndyWebb @presbycast OPC

[D. Patrick Ramsey @dprmsy]

The Puritan John Ball:

"God hath not given [the Psalms] to that end, nor by his commandment tied us and all churches to them and none others, in the precise form or words.”

This is a key point against exclusive Psalmody. There is no biblical command for it.

Hence:

[Zachary Garris @ZacharyGarris]

Excellent article from Patrick Ramsey (@dprmsy) showing the Psalms only position is not biblical, nor “the” Reformed position (not even the Westminster position).
https://t.co/vg1Mx9OLgs

[Davenant Institute @DavenantInst]

Davenant Press is excited to be publishing these books in 2026. Which books are on your TBR list?

https://t.co/UutUKYX9SR

#christianbooks2026 #theologybooks2026 #reformedtheology #davenantpress

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

@LatinPerDiem It says the code is expired.

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

@LatinPerDiem Thx!

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

@JonMcK1647 Perilous Times by Kenneth Gentry

[Michael J. Lynch @reformedtexan]

https://t.co/bEme7W0xak

[Lance @RfrmdMaceWindu]

Mark Jones is helpful as usual.

Future Justification? Future Judgment According to Works https://t.co/3haOmshlfU

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

Mark Jones on the topic of Justification and Good Works.

https://t.co/E5OsE66u8d

[The Presbytery Inn @PresbyInn]

I'm reading about Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland. You know what I've learned?

Our Protestant-Catholic-Orthodox debates on X are exactly the same as the ones 400 years ago, only dumber. Come learn with me about 17th century polemics. 🧵👇

[The Pilgrim's Progress 🍇 @ToCelestialCity]

A MINIATURE ESSAY ON BAXTER’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE PAPISTS.

Exodus 20:16 KJV – Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

1 Corinthians 1:10 KJV – Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

“Popery consists in the renunciation of reason and the papist, claims Baxter, should be ‘the laughing stock of the sober rational World’” (Keeble & Nuttall, Calendar of the Correspondence of Richard Baxter, Letter 616). This letter, dated November 11, 1659, was written to John Tombes, and later prefixed to his Romanism Discussed (1660).

I must admit, when I first began reading Baxter, I was disappointed at the lack of polemic against the Papists. It was even more worrying that Baxter seemed to, in the words of Hans Boersma, “minimize the differences between Roman Catholic and Protestant positions” (A Hot Peppercorn, p. 324, 2004). It took a little more reading for me to understand the psychology behind passages like the one quote-tweeted below.

Baxter’s lifelong enemy was the Antinomians. After the Battle of Naseby (1645) during the First English Civil War, he took the position of chaplain in Colonel Edward Whalley’s regiment. It did not take him very long to discover that Antinomianism was the “predominant infection” (Reliquiæ Baxterianæ, p. 111, 1696) of the army. To Baxter, “The Antinomians were ‘the abusers of God’s Grace’; more importantly, they seemed to be growing ever more powerful and prevalent in the army, and in the nation as a whole” (Cooper, Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-Century England, p. 91, 2001). From that moment on, he resolved to study “the Doctrine of the Covenants and Laws of God, of Redemption and Justification” (The Scripture Gospel Defended, “The Preface Long Ago Written,” 1690) more deeply than he had done, determined to put out the fire that was ever encroaching on orthodoxy.

Of his chief concerns, the greatest was that the Antinomians “do so exceedingly confirm the Papists,” and, Baxter says, “I must profess that besides carnal interest and the snare of bad education, I do not think that there is anything in the world that makes or hardens and confirms Papists more, and hinders their reception of the truth, than these same well-meaning people that are most zealous against them” (Of the Imputation, “The Preface,” 1675).

This sentiment is repeated in many of Baxter’s major works. The Antinomians, in reacting to Papist errors, had fallen into the contrary extreme, which gave the Papists occasion to ridicule the Protestants. He further explains the growth of Antinomianism in his The Scripture Gospel Defended, “And so have these Antinomians risen, first, From the Papists False Doctrines, about their Good Works; and next, From many godly Protestants, seldom, and unskilful opening the Mystery of Redemption and Grace, and preaching almost all for Humiliation, and too little of the wonderful Love of God, revealed in Jesus Christ; till Dr. Sibbes and such others, led them into another strein: And, thirdly, by their unskilful Managing the Doctrine and Controversies of Justification; till the Breme and French Divines abroad, and Davenant, Ant. Wotton, Bradshaw, Gataker, and such others at home, taught them to speak more distinctly and solidly, (which Le Blanc hath done above all before him)” (p. 55).

This is the context of the passage quote-tweeted below. Baxter does not deny that the Papists teach serious soteriological error; rather, he thinks that the true difference between the Reformed and Rome has been greatly obscured by Antinomians and unskilled Protestant disputants. He says as much in his Reliquiæ, “Yea, I found that our Doctrinal Controversies with the Papists themselves, were very much darkned, and seldom well stated; and that in the Points of Merit, Justification, Assurance of Salvation, Perseverance, Grace, Freewill, and such others, it was common to misunderstand one another, and rare to meet with any that by just Distinction and Explication, did well state the Controversies, and bring them out of the Dark” (p. 141).

This is just to echo Louis Le Blanc, who says, “For it is often the case that when contending parties use the same words, they nevertheless take them in a different sense. If this is not noticed, it makes for many useless controversies, or rather logomachies and disputes about words, even though there is agreement on the issue itself. Many such disputes have been entertained in the schools, and that – which is unworthy of good and serious men – with great bitterness” (Theses Theologicae, sig. A2v, 1683).

In fact, Baxter observed that many Papist theologians came close to Protestant teaching on various points: “Our students would not so ordinarily read Aquinas, Scotus, Ariminensis, Durandus, &c. if there were not in them abundance of precious truth which they esteem. How neer doth Dr. Holden come to us in the fundamental point of the Resolution of our faith? How neer come to the Scotists to us in sence, about the point of Merit? and Waldensis and others yet neerer? How neer comes Contarenus to us (and many more) in the point of Justification? How neer comes Cardinall Cajetan to us in the Liberty of dissenting from the Fathers in the Exposition of the Scriptures? and so doth Waldonate and many another. How neer comes Cardinal Cusanus (lib. de Concord.) to us, even in the Essential point of difference, about the Original and Title that Rome hath to its supremacy? How neer comes Gerson to us in the point of Venial and Mortal sin? perhaps as neer as we are to our selves. How neer come the Dominicans and Jansenians to us in the points of Predestination, Grace and Free-will? For my own part, I scarce know a Protestant that my thoughts in these do more concur with, then they do with Jansenius, (that is indeed, with Augustine himself). There are very few points of the Protestant doctrine, which I cannot produce some Papist or other to attest (and easily thus be even with Mr. Brerely, upon fairer terms then he deals with us)” (A Key for Catholics, pp. 365-366, 1659).

This was not just Baxter’s opinion. On points as critical as imputation and merit “Cornelius a Lapide is cited by Mr. Wotton, Vasquez by Davenant, Suarez by Mr. Burges” (Of the Imputation, p. 25). In response to the criticisms of Anthony Burgess, who had acknowledged that Bucer, Calvin, and Zanchi “place[d] Justification both in Imputed righteousness and Inherent, thereby endeavouring a Reconciliation with the Papists,” Baxter asks, “Why then might I not have had as fair measure as Lud. de Dieu, Bucer, Calvin, Zanchy? especially when I go not so far” (Of Justification, pp. 92-93, 1658).

Since these Papist theologians had so closely approached Protestant teaching, it was clear to Baxter that the irreconcilable difference between the Reformed and Rome did not consist in doctrines such as justification, but universal papal supremacy. “I do not deny but that many ceremonies, and many controverted doctrines were very ancient: as the use of Chrisme, and a white garment, and milke and honey to the newly baptized, exorcisme, confirmation by imposition of hands, the Memories of the Martyrs, with prayers and praises at their graves, or places of suffering; the oft use of the signe of the Cross, the observation of Lent (as well as Easter and Whitsontide) not to kneel on the Lords day, not to eat things strangled or bloody, so the doctrines of the power of Free-will, and predestination upon foreseen faith, and the misuse of the terms [Merit and Justification] the denyal of the perseverance of all Saints, &c. were too early and commonly entertained. But these be not the things that we call Popery, nor wherein the great difference between us, and the Romanists doth consist. But as for the great points in difference between the Papists and us, it is so evident in all antiquity, that Popery is a novelty, and that they have devised a new way to heaven which the Apostles and the Churches for many hundred years did never know, that onely gross ignorance of the Churches records, or a willingness to be deceived, can keep men from the knowledge of it” (The Safe Religion, pp. 107-108, 1657). And again, “I have long known that Popery doth not essentially consist in the other Errours about Doctrine or Worship, as Images, praying to Saints and Angels, Masses, Relicts, Merits, Justification, Free-will, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, &c. If a Greek, or Armenian, or Abassine, hold these and no more, he is not therefore a Papist. You may call them Integral parts of Popery if you will, but not essential. The Essence is only the Opinion of Universal Humane Church Soveraignty, and a Church Universal Unified and formally Constituted thereby” (Of National Churches, p. 41, 1691). HT: @reformedtexan.

But again, Baxter was aware of the serious soteriological issues on the part of Rome as a whole, and the polemic against them is not as lacking from his works as it would seem. I will trace Baxter’s response to Rome chronologically, drawing on key quotations to illustrate its consistency.

“How this differeth from the Papists Doctrine, I need not tell any Scholar who hath read their writings. 1. They take Justifying for Sanctifying: so do not I. 2. They quite overthrow and deny the most reall difference betwixt the Old Covenant and the New: and make them in a manner all one: But I build this Exposition and Doctrine, chiefly upon the clear differencing and opening of the Covenants. 3. When they say, We are Justified by Works of the Gospell; they mean only, that we are sanctified by Works that follow Faith, and are bestowed by Grace, they meriting our inherent justice at Gods hands. In a word, there is scarce any one Doctrine, wherein even their most learned Schoolmen are more sottishly ignorant then in this of Justification, so that when you have read them with profit and delight on some other subjects; when they come to this, you would pitty them, and admire their ignorance. They take our Works to be part of our Legall Righteousness: I take them not to be the smallest portion of it: But onely a part of our Evangelicall Righteousness; or of the Condition upon which Christs Righteousness shall be ours” (Aphorisms of Justification, pp. 195-196, 1655 ed.).

In referring to Chapter VI of his Confession (1655), Baxter says, “Yet though I will not give a particular answer to any such Writings as these are, I shall against the whole substance and scope of the undertaking anon prove against Mr. Crandon, and Mr. Eyre, that the Papists give more to works then I do, and I shall give them the Confession of my Faith, that they may truly know how much I give to them” (p. 8).

In Chapter VII of his Confession, Baxter presents “the two extreams [the Antinomians and the Papists] in two Columnes, and that which I take to be both the Truth and the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, in the middle” (p. 151) arranged in a forty-row table. Here are just a few of the errors he mentions: “To preach the Gospel, (say Papists) is to tell men that Christ hath satisfied and merited to procure us a power to merit Life for our selves, and to satisfie for the temporal punishment of our sins” (p. 166). “Justifying-Faith is the Assent to the Truth of Gods Word, whereby our hearts are wrought to Charity and Hope, and so to the obedience of Gods Law, and this is the matter of our Justification (say the Papists)” (p. 167). “Justification (say the Papists) is only the Infusion of charity, and so other habits of Grace into the soul, whereby it is made Really righteous in the sight of God, and deserveth eternal Life: Or (as others) it consisteth partly in the Remission of sin, and partly in our Inherent Qualifications, and that either coordinatly, or else Inherent Righteousness hath the precedency, and is most principally meant by the term Justification” (p. 169).

Further, Baxter spends an astounding 169 pages proving in Chapter X of his Confession not only that he is not singular in his judgments, but that many beloved Reformed theologians like Calvin, Beza, and Zanchi went much further than him on merit and the interest of works in our justification.

Baxter considered his Confession to be such a complete vindication of him against the charge of popery that after it was written, whenever he was accused of teaching similar to the Papists, he would refer readers to the work.

“Popery is a mixture of old condemned errors, formerly called Heresies; which the ancient Church hath testified against; and therefore it is no safe way to Salvation: And here I should have tryed their particular errors not yet mentioned, or insisted on, as their Doctrine of Merits and Justification thereby, Satisfactions, and many Semipelagian errors, Image-worship, with many the like: But that this is beyond my present intended scope, and purposed brevity, and is so fully performed already by so many unanswerable Treatises of our Divines” (The Safe Religion, pp. 174-175, 1657). Baxter attached Bp. George Downame’s Catalogue of Popish Errors (1620), including a section on justification, to the end of this work.

“All the Question being of the Antecedent, and it being proved before in the former disputation, and fully by our writers against them, I shall thither for brevity refer you. What impudency is it to introduce such abundance of corruptions contrary to the express word of God and after all this to say, they cannot erre when they have so plagued the Church with their errors? They teach men to serve God in an unknown tongue, and speak and hear they know not what, to worship the Bread with divine Worship, to receive onely the bread, when Christ ordained that they should have the cup, and so do abolish one half of the Sacrament, they adore the Virgin Mary and other Saints, they plead for justification by the merit of their own works, as having a condignity of the reward; they make the Church a new thing by making a new head and center of unity and a new and daily mutable Religion, in a word they poison both Church policie, Worship and Doctrine by their errors; and when they have done they stand to it that they cannot erre. Like a Leper that should maintain he cannot possibly be Leprous, when he is covered with it already: or like a swearing or drunken beast, that should swear that he never did swear nor was drunk, nor ever can be, when he lyeth drunk in the dirt, and breaths out his oaths. What need any impartial discerning man any other proof that the Pope and the Church of Rome is not infallible, then actually to observe the swarm of their errors that have troubled the Church?” (ibid., pp. 257-258).

Baxter’s 25th reason against popery presented in A Winding Sheet for Popery (1657) is that, “their Doctrine leadeth not to settle the soul in a durable well-grounded peace: for they lead men so much to their own works, and make so light of pardon and reconciliation by the blood of Christ; and lead men so much to ceremonies, and deny them assurance of Justification or Salvation, when they have done all, and then design them to the flames of Purgatory when they die, (unless the Pope will be so charitable as to ease them) that there is little setled Peace of Conscience to be hoped for that way” (p. 12).

A year later he tells us the four main disagreements he has with Rome on justification: “1. The world knows that the Papists by the first Justification, mean the first infusion of renewing special grace. 2. And that by the second Justification, they mean, the adding of further degrees of Sanctification, or actuating that which before was given. 3. That they hold, faith justifieth in the first Justification constitutive. 4. And that works or holiness justifie constitutive in the second Justification, even as Albedo facit album, vel doctrina indita facit doctum. On the other side, I have told you often privately and publikely, that, 1. By Justification I mean not Sanctification, nor any Physical, but a Relative change. 2. That by first and second, I mean not two states, or works, but the same state and works as begun, and as continued. 3. That faith justifieth neither constitutive & inhaerenter, nor as any cause, but as a Receiving Condition. 4. And that works of external obedience are but a dispositive condition, and an exclusion of that ingratitude that would condemn” (Of Justification, p. 110, 1658).

In Catholick Theologie (1675), Baxter stages a hypothetical conference between a Lutheran and a “Reconciler” (representing himself) on the question, “Whether the Difference between Papists, Arminians, Lutherans and Calvinists about Mans Merits, be as Great as many think it?” The Lutheran claims to be scandalized by a sermon that Baxter gave in which he supposedly had said that the difference between the Protestants and the Papists was “little more than in meer words.” The “Reconciler” (Baxter) replies that the “report is false, and that which I said of some particular Controversies only, they feign to be spoken of all, or most, or others” (p. 263). This entire section should be read.

And finally, though this is by no means a comprehensive list, he reports that the Papists abuse the name “merit” on p. 295 of An End of Doctrinal Controversies (1691).

It is true that, later in his career, Baxter spoke more sparingly of the soteriological errors of the Papists, but this is not to be interpreted as a shift toward their position. The substance of his teachings remained consistent throughout his life. As noted earlier, he regarded Antinomianism as the more pressing issue in England and believed that the Papists had been adequately answered – not only by himself, but by a multitude of other Reformed theologians. (See also: A Christian Directory, p. 925, 1673.) The majority of Baxter’s works were intended to be a positive statement of his doctrine or as refutations of Antinomianism. When he does address the Papists, as in The Safe Religion, he focuses chiefly on what he considers the essential irreconcilable difference: the claim of universal papal supremacy. Yet nowhere does he deny that the Papists have soteriological error (as is clear from the passages above), he simply regarded such errors as integral parts and not essential parts of popery; and it was the essential part that he believed must be opposed most vigorously.

It is unfortunate that with all this weighty evidence, C.F. Allison’s work on Baxter is still being taken seriously and circulated on this app. Hans Boersma, in his groundbreaking work, A Hot Peppercorn (2004), says, “Allison is the only one among modern scholars who has reiterated the old charge, common among Baxter’s contemporaries, that ‘it is difficult to distinguish Baxter’s position from that of the Council of Trent.’ This is an unfair criticism, based on a misunderstanding of what Baxter actually taught. Allison has rightly been criticized [by Gavin John McGrath and by Tim Beougher] for his erroneous position.” (p. 16).

We must concur with the late J.I. Packer that “the charges [of popery] brought against him [Baxter] were ludicrous” (The Redemption and Restoration, p. 261, 1954).

[The Pilgrim's Progress 🍇 @ToCelestialCity]

I have compiled a list of important quotes on the IAOC from some of Baxter's major works.

Aphorisms of Justification, 1655 ed.
"And for my own part, I think it [the doctrine of the IAOC] is the truth, though I confess I have been ten years of another mind for the sole passive righteousness, because of the weakness of those grounds which are usually laid to support the opinion for the active and passive; till discerning more clearly the nature of satisfaction, I perceived that though the sufferings of Christ have the chief place therein, yet his obedience as such may also be meritorious and satisfactory," pg. 37.

Richard Baxter's Catholick Theologie, 1675.
"And so the same merits of Christ's active, passive, and habitual righteousness do cause our glory, both by giving us pardon of our forfeiture, and by covenant-donation, and as a reward to Christ, and to us when we perform the conditions of his gift," pg. 64. (Note: This is the chapter titled "Of Justification by Christ's Righteousness, Imputed.")

This chapter explains the correct sense of imputation for Baxter; he is rejecting the so-called "strict" sense.

A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Bk. 1 (On the Imputation), 1676.
Note: In recounting the history of the controversy, Baxter's critique of Savoy is that, to some, the wording suggested that they denied inherent righteousness, and that it could scandalize the Papists.

"We are justified by Christ's whole righteousness, passive, active, and habitual, yea the divine so far included as by union advancing the rest to a valuable sufficiency: that the passive, that is, Christ's whole humiliation is satisfactory first, and so meritorious, and the active and habitual meritorious primarily," pg. 24.

"Quest. 8. Is it Christ's divine, habitual, active, or passive righteousness which justifies us? Ans. All: viz., the habitual, active, and passive exalted in meritoriousness by union with the divine," pg. 87.

"If I have, 1. Never written one word against imputation of righteousness there [in my Aphorisms]. 2. Yea, I have oft written for it. 3. And if those very pages be for it which he [Dr. Thomas Tully] accuses. 4. Yea, if there and elsewhere I write more for it than Olevianus, Ursinus, Paraeus, Scultetus, Wendelin, Piscator, and all the rest of those great Divines who are for the imputation only of the imputation only of the passive righteousness of Christ, when I profess there and often to concur with Mr. Bradshaw, Grotius, and others that take in the active also, yea and the habitual, yea and divine respectively, as advancing the merits of the human –– if all this be notoriously true, what epithets will you give to this academical doctor's notorious untruth?" pg. 172.

You should read this entire work.

Ibid, Bk. 2 (An Account of My Consideration).
"What I mean by the distinction of imputation in strict and large sense, I must desire the reader to see in Mr. Bradshaw's A Treatise of Justification, especially in the epistle to the English edition: for I hold the imputation of Christ's active righteousness, as he does, in the larger sense," a note on pg. 27.

The Scripture Gospel Defended, 1690.
"But in the just sense of imputation, all is imputed to us, that is, Christ's habitual, active, and passive righteousness, fulfilling his own part of the covenant, advanced in dignity by the union of the divine nature and perfection, was the true meritorious cause of our justification, and not any one of these alone", pg. 24.

"And though my own judgment be for the imputation of Christ's passive, active, and habitual righteousness, dignified by the divine as the full and the sole meritorious cause of all grace and glory, as making up the condition of his mediatorial covenant imposed on him by God, yet I entreat the learned reader to peruse the writings of those great Divines that are for the imputation of the passive only: Ursinus, Olevianus, Paraeus, Scultetus, Wendelin, Beckman, and the rest, with Cameron, Placaeus, and all that party of famous French Divines who all effectually confute the false sense of imputation of the active righteousness which Mr. Bradshaw confutes with many others (as if we had done it by Christ, and were ourselves the subjects of it, and are justified by that law that condemns us)," pg. 74.

"It was God the Father to whom Christ paid the price of our redemption, and gave his active and passive righteousness for us: but morally and reputatively, it is no unmeet phrase to say that is given to us which is given for us in our necessity and to purchase us all this", pg. 100.

"The plain inconsistency of a perfect conformity to the law made our own, with Christ's dying for sin, and our need of pardon, constrained a great part of the most famous Divines of the last age to go too far, in my judgment, in excluding Christ's active and habitual righteousness to our justification, and confining it to the passive only," pg. 109.

An End of Doctrinal Controversies, 1691.
"God never judges falsely, but knows all things to be what they are: and therefore he reputes Christ's meritorious righteousness and sacrifice to be the meritorious cause of all men's justification who are justified (and of the conditional pardon of all the world, 2 Corinthians 5:18-20) and as sufficient and effectual to the assigned ends, as our own personal righteousness or suffering would have been, and more (though it be not so ours, as that of our own performance would have been, nor so immediately give us our right to impunity and life, but mediately by the covenant)," pg. 257.

Note: Baxter again speaks of Savoy, saying, "And some worthy persons of that assembly, upon conference, assure me that how ill soever it is worded, they themselves did mean it as I and other Protestants do, and did disclaim the obvious ill sense," pg. 266.

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

@JonMcK1647 @r_w_rob

[Michael J. Lynch @reformedtexan]

We don’t need less government, per se; we need less bad government and more good government.

[David Carnes @DavidCarnes4]

@matt_everhard I'll be there!

[Scott R. Swain @scottrswain]

Friedman’s *Failure of Nerve* can be read as a book commending leadership via the four cardinal virtues: prudence: knowing the end and how to get there; justice: understanding what is right; courage: willingness to take risks to achieve just ends; and temperance: self-regulation.