Thomas Blake and Richard Baxter

[Sam Jer]

https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/thomas-blake-1597-1657/

Blake published a large number of books on puritan theology, but his attacks on Richard Baxter damaged his reputation with many nonconformists

Does anyone know what these attacks were about and what exactly happened?

 

[Phil D.]

Wikipedia has a short synopsis.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/thomas-blake-1597-1657/



Does anyone know what these attacks were about and what exactly happened?

I can't answer in great detail, but these works may provide you a greater insight.

Thomas Blake:

1. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/te...full+text&c=eebo&cc=eebo&idno=A28344.0001.001
2. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/te...ll+text&c=eebo2&cc=eebo2&idno=A76812.0001.001

Richard Baxter:

1. http://www.digitalpuritan.net/Digital Puritan Resources/Baxter, Richard/Richard Baxter's Apology.pdf
2. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26886.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

 

[MW]

https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/thomas-blake-1597-1657/



Does anyone know what these attacks were about and what exactly happened?

There were two issues -- justification and the right to sacraments. These were not "attacks" as we would understand it, but the usual way of pursuing disagreements through the press in the 17th century. Nor was Blake singular in this. Rutherford Owen, Burgess, Brown, and a host of theologians were involved. It would have damaged his relationship with the rising neonomian party. I suppose insofar as they became popular he would have been left on the outer as far as reputation is concerned. But it doesn't seem to have affected the reputations of the others so I am not sure in what sense Blake was particularly damaged.

 

[Sam Jer]

There were two issues -- justification and the right to sacraments. These were not "attacks" as we would understand it, but the usual way of pursuing disagreements through the press in the 17th century. Nor was Blake singular in this. Rutherford Owen, Burgess, Brown, and a host of theologians were involved. It would have damaged his relationship with the rising neonomian party. I suppose insofar as they became popular he would have been left on the outer as far as reputation is concerned. But it doesn't seem to have affected the reputations of the others so I am not sure in what sense Blake was particularly damaged.

I've heard quite a bit about the justification issue back when I was reading the heidelblog on a regular basis (where clark argues that Baxter tought a works gospel). I'm less familiar with the right to the sacraments issue

 

[Charles Johnson]

Blake is incredibly sound and precise. If he found something to criticize in Baxter, Baxter probably had it coming.

 

[MW]

I've heard quite a bit about the justification issue back when I was reading the heidelblog on a regular basis (where clark argues that Baxter tought a works gospel). I'm less familiar with the right to the sacraments issue

Baxter's view was that "saving" faith is requisite to receive the sacraments. Blake's view was that profession of faith only was required. Baxter's position on this would become the mainstream, especially after Edwards championed it.

I am still undecided as to whether the two issues are tied together. Baxter's view on conditions of the covenant is significant for his view on saving faith as a condition for the Lord's supper. I'm not sure if others are so stringent in their thinking. There would be anti-neonomians who maintained Baxter's view on right to the sacraments. Foxcroft's Letter to Edwards in Edwards' Works is a useful starting point for historical inquiry.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Baxter's view was that "saving" faith is requisite to receive the sacraments. Blake's view was that profession of faith only was required. Baxter's position on this would become the mainstream, especially after Edwards championed it.

Here is Baxter's statements on the matter in controversy with Blake:

Mr. Blake Treat of Sacr. p. 129. saith of me:

"His Grand Rule is, That a serious Professor of the Faith is to be taken for a true believer. — If this Proposition were a Scripture Maxime, then it would have born a further superstruction; but being neither found there, nor any proof made that it is any way deduced thence, mother and daughters may all justly be called into question.—I do yield, that charity is to hope the best; but that we should put our charity to it, or our reason either, for probability or certainty when we are nowhere so taught, and have a more sure Rule for our proceeding, I see no Reason. I can scarce meet with a Minister that saith (and I have put the question to many of the most Eminent that I know) that he baptizeth any Infant upon this ground of hope, that the Parent is Regenerate, but still with earnest vehemence professeth the contrary."

Answ. 1. That serious Profession of true faith is to be taken by us as a probable Evidence of the thing Profest, till men forfeit their credit, I shall (God willing) prove anon from Scripture.

. . .

2. If he yield that charity is to hope the best, Why not then to be put to it? Is it not put to it, when it must hope the best? Or is not this a contradiction?

3. What kind of holy Ordinance is this, wherein neither Charity nor Reason must be put to it, when the state of another is presented to our consideration?

4. What is the more sure Rule for our proceeding, which is here mentioned? I must profess, that upon my most diligent search, with a willingness to discover it, I am not yet able to know what Mr. Blakes Rule is

. . .

5. Either he will require a Profession of true Faith, or not: If not, then we are not yet fit to dispute about the ends to which that Profession is requisite, seeing we are not agreed whether the Profession it self be requisite in those whom we must admit . . . But on the contrary. 1. It is signum mentis, and therefore is required to signifie what is in the mind. 2. Else a false Profession should be requisite and acceptable as well as a true, if it were Profession, quâ talis, and propter se, that were requisite.. . . 3. It is not any one sign that God tyeth us to: Not speaking, for then the dumb could not profess: Not writing; for then none could be Professors that cannot write: But its any thing that may signifie the mind; which plainly shews, that it is required to this end, that it may signifie the mind. God never encouraged any to speak the bare words, be they true or false; but only to speak the truth.

6. Suppose it were only another species of Faith which is necessary to be professed in order to Baptism, would not Mr. Blake put either his Charity or Reason to it, to judge whether the person do in probability mean as he speaks?